Charlie Rose

1800mylogo  03/03/2009 08:51 PM Report

Dear Mr. Rose,

I enjoyed your program, regarding the "Future of Newspapers".

I have made a few observations based on this topic on your program.

Observation # 1

Newspapers Provide a TRUSTED source of news.

Newspapers, since the early 1900's, especially, have been an important source of news, whether it be national or local news. One thing I am surprised that was not mentioned or capitalized on by the panelists in your program, is the aspect of a "trusted" source of news. With the internet providing free news feeds, and information, newspapers often provide in-depth different views and angles from knowledgeable well-trained journalists, not "internet" wanna be reporters. Have you noticed, for example, large news cable networks, such as MSNBC, CNN, and CNBC often quote national newspapers as their "source" when reporting a breaking story. Large financial stories, and government stories, often provide the stories to the national newspapers, before, they do the cable news networks. In my opinion, this is because the newspapers have developed an expert and almost flawless trusted source of reporting solid and factuial stories.

Observation # 2

Mr. Zuckerman, Color Presses are not the answer

I just don't understand the reasoning behind Mr. Zuckerman's statement in the interview, again and again, about the new "color presses" at the "New York Daily News" will increase their advertsiing, as they can now charge a premium for color. He said nothing about the content of his newspaper, or featured stories, journalistic approches, etc etc. He focused on the paper that the newspaper is printed on, and not the words printed. In this day and age of cheap color, and cheap color presses, Mr. Zuckerman's argument of color being a factor that will propel his newspaper's ad profits are outdated. Additionally, Mr. Zuckerman mentioned that the Wall Street Journal is doing well because businesses can "write off the wall street jorunal" as a business expense. Can't a business write off the "New York Daily News" as a business expense as well, especially that they have a "money" section on their website. In my opinion, Mr. Zuckerman did not come off as sounding like a newspaper and publishing icon, schooled at McGill University and Harvard Law School.

Observation # 3

Micropayments is NOT the answer

Newspapers that claim to charge per content are way off the bbandwagon. Just the fact, that they are discussing that at this time, is ironic. I think that the newspapers should not abadon printed newspapers, and instead, unite their online and print versions, and focus on CONTENT. I beleive CONTENT is the main reason why some newspapers are thriving, and some are not. For example, the Wall Street Journal's content is superior that most other national newspapers, and that, along with their partnerships they have developed with other media platforms, are reasons they outshine their competition.

These are just three, of many observations I have made on the newspaper industry. Of course, they do have a challenge today, but if they focus on excellent content, and work more with their journalists to provide ideas, the industry will preform very well in the years to come.

Cheers,

David Tartamella

pixelgeeeek  02/20/2009 04:15 PM Report

Excerpt from my blog -

Micropayments! What was Walter Isaacson thinking!?!?

"...I hate to tell the Baby Boomer aged publisher's out there. It won't happen. I'm sorry, but the industry is just going to have to come to grips with the fact that the business model has changed, readers tastes have changed, and 150 years of newspaper's living off paid classifieds and display advertising is DEAD. Attempting to get users to pay directly for content is a pipe dream..."

http://tinyurl.com/bu3db8

famebook  02/18/2009 08:24 PM Report

http://tinyurl.com/bnxwfr - This has been causing quite a stir! - Newpapers/ Magazines - How to mend what isn't really broken! - Jan Simmonds

Don-N-ABQ  02/17/2009 08:02 PM Report

I responded at length on my blog:

<a href="http://don-n-abq.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html">Making Model Newspapers</a>(http://don-n-abq.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html)

Thinking it would be to long to post here.

In my response I try to offer up some ideas of a business model that might work.

(PS: Charlie, what wrong with Duke hoops and coach K.?)

hrc  02/16/2009 07:14 AM Report

As a word lover, I've been vexed for days if not for years on this topic. As a youngster I delivered papers before and after school. It remains a source of income for many and is a vital stimulant to the economy. It remains a source of information for many too. The printed word on paper has a substance apart from it's electronic rival. It maybe the actual sensation that comes from holding the printed word in your hands, a medium between mind and body.

At one point the argument shifted toward the kindle type newspaper and my brain kinda snapped at that point, that led to my vexation in the first place. The dilemma being that of newsprint fluff vs. substance. I have been in an ecological battle with all printed matter since I discovered computers say around '82, but it's essence is an ideological warfare. Factually, the problem of the rain forests and newsprint is or should be a governmental concern, not mine, nevertheless I have some concern about the amount of trees that go into a newspaper distribution and simply submit that the amount of useful information within any newspaper is not equivalent to the ecological disruption taking place to produce it and thus find myself incapable of subscribing to any such medium. So I haven't read papers for maybe around 10 years now, there being many reasons for that. If I had one paper to read it would be the WSJ, though I might die of shame.

So I'm kinda in cutoff land as far as the news goes. I find it very difficult to read news on my lcd screen because there seems to be a disconnect. Maybe Bill Gates had it right years ago with the tablet pc. There is nothing like actually holding printed matter and reading it though and the electronic word is still behind the magic glass, which I still find kinda mesmerizing. If I feel I must read a paper I can always print it out by pushing a button, or if I want the old world tactile sensation of reading the news I'd stop in the library. Regardless the newspaper is vital to the American economy.

I look forward to the follow up discussions on this matter. I'd like to thank everybody who made this discussion possible. Quite frankly I prefer to get my news or the pulse of news on shows like this, it is like interactive news, from different points of view simultaneously, it seems more complete this way. I also like the 60 minutes news as an informative type news. There is a lot of really good news electronically off the internet map, with substance, especially public television.

Calgary  02/14/2009 10:15 PM Report

Sir,

The interviews tonight lamented the passing of something that may have existed in the imaginations or nostalgic memories of the guests.

Not every newspaper is worthy of the praise heaped on it tonight.

News organizations and other information providers should be culled into two camps: the first are the "gisters". They provide to their audience the "gist" of something reported elsewhere or originally developed in a news release or event. Rather than news providers they are awareness providers -- simply they provide for their audience an awareness that something happened. Rather than journalists they are data writers and if on air personalities or data readers. Data only becomes information if it has meaning.

The second, is the remarkable fifth estate who play an incredible role in a democratic government to ensure that governments and other organizations are held accountable.

Does the fifth estate actually exist today?

For example, when city budgets are being crunched and politicians are making hard choices to limit services is the coverage detailing the impact of the trade offs to the different constituents? Or, does the coverage take on the drama of a school quarrel of he says/she says; the different camps and the hand wringing or angst while all the to-ing and fro-ing occurs.

Where was the fifth estate when soldiers were sent into combat? Did they challenge and demand an understanding of the decision-making process and supporting information, analysis and conclusions?

Or did they provide a "gist" of the official line of the Bush administration?

I could go on -- why is it academics are saying they could see the financial meltdown and US consumer led depression but not one word has been written on what the role of news organizations to contribute to the current situation.

By the way, let me welcome you the 21st century. Next time, have on guests that actually do receive their information online. Not people who pontificate without really understanding.

I do subscribe electronically to 150 or more newspapers online through www.pressreader.com (paid subscription). I do so simply because I hate the effort to recycle my newspapers, I hate the mess, the waste and the ink on my hands. The software is incredibly klugy and is challenging to master. The hardest part, believe it or not, is trying to save a hardcopy of an article. Clipping a newstory or a recipe to try take the patience of Job and the IT skills of Bill Gates.

My conclusion: the data content inserted between the ads, is often simply the gist of something that is developed elsewhere or provided via news releases from the source.

The fifth estate is almost non existing.

I believe strongly in supporting efforts to develop unique perspectives, original source of INFORMATION (data that has meaning). I am putting my money where my mouth is. I am willing to pay for quality.

I am not willing to pay for repetitive useless boring data that is repackaged from elsewhere. I am not willing to pay for a brand, marketing hype, colour pictures, or whatever else is dreamed up to increase shareholder equity or to justify large bonuses.

QUALITY INFORMATION, people will support and pay for.

The choice is on of quality.

Christopher  02/13/2009 03:23 PM Report

Content does have to be free. Web news can put their publicity on the web page. The example of music sold on the internet is crazy. You can't have "publicity" on a song you download. What a stupid analogy. Mort gets it, you can't micro charge, just load up on publicity on the web page "like most newspapers". Why do people still buy newspapers at home? All the news is on the net. Newspapers are good when you get breakfast at the restaurant.

AdamGurri  02/13/2009 12:32 PM Report

Robert Thomson seems to be lacking in his understanding of basic economic principles. The nature of competition is that firms try to get an edge by finding an affordable way to provide the same thing their competitors are providing, but at a lower cost.

If Google did not exist, someone else would be out there "devaluing" everything. Google may have seen some opportunities and been quick to respond to them, but if they had not there would have been some other company to take their place.

RobertIvan  02/13/2009 12:48 AM Report

At 9:20 Robert Thomson says, "Google devalues everything it touches" and I cannot help but think that he sounds like a local store owner complaining about WalMart. In the mean time everyone is shopping there and the company is single handedly responsible for most all innovation in store / product logistics. Rickles and Bamburgers went out of business for a reason, the free market spoke.

I would like Charlie Rose to ask at the next panel discussion the following questions:

1 - What unmet need is your newspaper now filling in the internet paradigm.

2 - What value can you expect to derive from filling that need?

3 - Is that value enough to make your business economically sustainable?

tartufe  02/12/2009 10:36 PM Report

Don't know if I'm part of the problem or transition. As a Kindle lover I have five or more books purchased (downloaded) while watching an author on CR - for $9.99.

Awaiting battery replacement now and am lost.

I find local paper tedious. Local news is the same daily carnage with different names.

marcaross10  02/12/2009 09:14 PM Report

From: http://advocacytwopointzero.blogspot.com/

While watching broadcast, all I kept thinking was ,"my town might not have a paper - so what!" Don't get me wrong, I am a complete newspaper junkie. I subscribe to five daily newspapers. The WSJ, NYT, FT, LAT, USA - all of which stack up on my driveway in coastal beach town I am living and inform the rest of the neighborhood that I am not a local - but that is another story.

The real story is, I am a subscriber, just not a local subscriber. I have lived in 3 states in the past 12 years and have never once subscribed to any local papers. You know why - I have no use or need for them. I am more worried about global, big picture topics that can only be found in a few papers - mainly the big nationals listed above. What is even more problematic for the industry, is that if I could subscribe to the UK Guardian or the Times of India and receive a fresh copy daily, I would.

Papers have a choice to go big or to go small. I can't imagine being a middle player - there is no there there. Most readers what long format articles of unique global issues or to see if their nephew's soccer team beat his high school rival.

I believe it is far better for the Orange County Register for example to partner the HK South China Post and deliver me that paper. As already suggested on this blog, with the Newseum's front page feature and the rise of the Kindle - newspapers of all size and reach will be digitized in some format soon. That will change the marketplace and consumption of newspapers, and it may even make me more of a local in my neighborhood.

pxlpark  02/12/2009 06:55 PM Report

@REMant i agree totally with the idea that we may one day see the Exxon-Mobil Times. But I hope it isn't as tragic as it sounds.

One thing that could also be possible to boost readership, and is not to dissimilar, is the idea of having Guest Editors. Something often done in the magazine industry, but not in the news paper industry. For instance the Oprah edition of the New York Times, where she lends her brand to be used in conjunction with another.

REMant  02/12/2009 04:24 PM Report

Just about all TV shows, movies and CDs are online somewhere as soon as they appear. The same will happen with books if digitized, no matter what they try to do to stop it. It is not to be wondered that producers are turning to such distribution themselves and only trying to make it more easily bought from them, than found illicitly. And newspapers would suffer immensely from the loss of free access if they tried to become subscriber-only sites, unless the price were commensurate and compensated by ads. This is feasible, but it is not half the problem.

Newspapers were once all local, even the largest ones in the largest cities, but the mkt segmented not only as suburbs grew, but as interests and advertisers did, as well. Where they used to be able to serve all of these groups much as a downtown department store, they were now faced with the equivalent of suburban malls, discount stores, high-end shoppes, electronic retailers, and so forth. Other media grew up to serve these localities, interests and advertisers, leaving them with the choice either to reduce themselves to serving the inner city or to specialize, themselves, the obvious choice being national news and interpretation. But radio and TV, weekly magazines and specialist journals, and now, the Internet, have cut into this market, and the last nearly wiping out their remaining classified advertising as well.

And many ppl who once talked to each other and were concerned about community affairs, or even what had happened on I Love Lucy, now are only concerned about professional or career matters. Public media have declined in proportion as politics and shared experience has declined. Conceivably, the NY Times might be replaced one day by, say, the Exxon-Mobil Times, or the Wall St Jrnl - Exxon Edition.

But segmentation is not all bad, if it means that more ppl find a place to exercise their talents along the Adam Smith model. Old-fashioned media had a monopoly; segmentation is, for all its drawbacks, a breath of free-trade. The Internet and talk radio have provided an outlet for opinionizing absent for the most part in papers, and the reporting staffs cannot often keep up in either quantity or even quality. Personally, though, I rarely read any of them, or merely scan the headlines or look up particular facts, and I get the larger part - the interpretation - from books and apply it myself.

The difference between media stores such as iTunes, and news media is that in the former ppl choose what they want, while news is something, that, to be good, nobody really wants. If it is really good, it is really a public good. Ads have always run counter to quality, too, but there was a time when media, given their monopoly position, could divert revenue for quality, but hardly anymore. The argument that ppl taking the time to read papers should be attractive to advertisers, is I think then fallacious, given that history. Advertisers are interested in reaching ppl who will want to buy their products, not ppl who might, and the trends are evermore toward that end, just as media are focused that way. Media have tried to counter - as if they really had a choice - by dumbing down, but that does little to solve the segmentation problem. It might make more sense to treat all quality media as public goods and support them with a tax on TVs or computers, or Internet access, etc, though this will pretty much mean, if not nationalization, at least a managed situation.

In sum, there are several polarities: national vs local; facts vs interpretation; consumerism vs instruction; ads vs subscription, public vs private. These can be put in two groups: 1. interpretation, instruction, subscription, national or international, and public in one; and, 2. local, ads, consumer, facts, and private in the other. And this is the way it is going.

pxlpark  02/12/2009 02:23 PM Report

What comes as more of a surprise is that these gentlemen still are missing a fundamental understanding of where print media needs to go, and also how print media is digested in 2009. It is also simply toxic to think that print and interactive are in anyway mutually exclusive.

Online advertising has persistently proven to have incredibly low "sitcking" capability since it's inception in the mid 90's, and it still baffles me today to think that anyone would, in 2009, humor the idea of building a business around it. At best the advertising will only be as interesting and "sticky" as 1/100th of a percent of an excellent TV ad (and there are very few of those).

The print companies that will fail will be the ones who do not understand how to extend their brand into the interactive world, and how they can utilize interactive as an extension of their current content. WSJ is in a good place, partially because as Robert Thomson pointed out, readers expense the paper as a business expenditure. But there is so munch further to go, and so many underutilized options available.

What most of the gentlemen seem to not inherently understand is that many people under the ago of 30, are interacting with several media types at any single moment, and what they will need to do in the future to stay in that mix. From Twittering, to Blogging, to reading Metro/am, time shifted TV, music, RSS feeds and gaming on their phones and ipods, and more, all at the very same time, they need to understand their place. This is something Japan and Korea are taking full advantage of, but American media, or rather the English speaking media seem to be behind on.

For starters, these publication must start to provide an extension of lifestyle and even focus on micro niches and customized content (which you cannot do in print). People will pay for things that directly enhance their in a qualitative way. In addition to this, many companies seem to think that print stops at the printing press, and they have no reason to invest in the presentation of their products (this is different then advertising). This is a capital offense in the 21st century. Everything is presentation, Starbucks proved this. $4 coffee is nothing to laugh at, when for 50 years it has been well under $1.

I am hoping that Charlie has Monocle Founder, and Editor in Chief Tyler Brûlé on this show, as Tyler and Co. have a very good understanding of where print needs to go in the 21st century.

Paulp_Nonfiction  02/12/2009 02:01 PM Report

Dear Mr. Rose:

Yesterday's panel on newspapers was very interesting and what's more the topic was very, should I say, à propos.

On the topic per se, I tend to have an A CONTRARIO point of view or rather to (politely) disagree with your panel. First, let me say that I do not pretend to be smarter than your guests, far from it: I mean they have MUCH more experience than I have in the field of journalism and I have the utmost respect for these gentlemen, and that includes you, Sir.

But we seem to forget that the digital paper is INTERACTIVE which, in and of itself, offers a PLETHORA (or a SLEUGH...here's a better one a MYRIAD) of opportunities. And what's neat is that these new opportunities will allow papers to generate new revenues.

Case in point, the Yellow Pages. Each big city will have its Big Paper. Ante the digital age, we all had a phone book. In the digital age, couldn't the digital paper offer a link that would allow people to obtain the coordinates of a company, restaurant (Restaurants could show their daily menus), etc.

Ditto again for publicity flyers. In the digital age, the local grocery stores will be able to advertise their items (read "food items") directly on the DIGITAL PAPER to all consumers who request it. The big-city DIGITAL PAPER would have the links of all the local papers and points of interests such as town hall, police station, county services, utilities, etc.

Ditto for the weatherforecast which would be 24/7, personalized with maps et al and more precise and personalized.

Digital papers do not only report. The digital paper of the future will be a tool that will enable local decisionmakers to get the pulse of the local community. It will be able to survey people on different topics/issues: New constructions, transit extensions, etc. So journalists will not only report and write. In addition, they will survey and analyse the results of these surveys, report them and discuss them with their readers.

With the State lottery, digital papers could allow people to pick their own numbers.

Like it or not, we live in the DIGITAL AGE. There is no turning back. The possibilities offered by the Digital Age are infinitisemal, ditto the DIGITAL PAPER.

Thank you very much, Mr. Rose. Last night's show was very interesting!

Sincerely,

Paulp non-fiction

easyreader  02/12/2009 01:41 PM Report

To comment on the future of newspapers, I don't know what the newspapers are doing wrong. I myself devote time to peruse the newspaper. I scan for stories that interest me and go through the ads. If there is a story that interests me more or I need to know what others think, I go to the web version of the story. I fear the lost of newspapers for our future. The loss is a loss of our connection to the ones that follow us in the future. Case in point, Abraham Lincoln cut up news clippings to place in a journal that we now are able to see his thought process. I hear of so many people who lament that some of their writings have return to the ether that is the digital world. Also newspapers can be recycled but how do recycle these digital reader? Toxic to the landfill?