02 August 2009
Observer to close?
04/08/09 10:11 Filed in: media
I’ll tell you what gets to me about stories
like the one that says the Observer may close (note to
overseas readers, the Observer is the oldest
established Sunday newspaper in the world; if
you’re reading in America then it’s
almost as old as your country’s
independence). Actually two things. First, as a
jobbing journalist I have clear vested interests
in not seeing my market shrink.
The second thing, though, is how many people are hijacking the story with their own agendas. The comments to the story I’ve quoted above are a good example. I’ll disregard the one that complains that the Observer has a ludicrously gay agenda, I’m a straight man and hadn’t noticed so it couldn’t be that pronounced, and even if it were it would probably do OK financially if every gay man and woman bought it and responded to the ads. It’s the other stuff - the ‘why don’t they just shut all the newspapers down and admit they’ve lost’ stuff - that gets to me. I said yesterday that this wasn’t some sort of arch-rivalry competition and I still think it.
Let’s look at a few facts. According to the Sunday Times, the Observer first started to go into loss in 1792 - no, really, the story is here. Clearly I wasn’t there at the time but I think we can be pretty certain this had nothing to do with social networking. It has been sold numerous times, the most recent proprietor being the Guardian Media Group, which bought it in the early 1990s - but it wasn’t doing well at the time.
Of course the current losses won’t have been helped by the profligacy of social media, and the fact that anyone can log on to the web and read the whole paper without paying is hitting a lot of newspapers very hard as they’re tied to the existing publishing model. But the idea that the most sold-off, most cast-off newspaper in what oldies like me still refer to as Fleet Street should be taken as some sort of barometer of the effects social media is having on newspapers is absurd. The Observer, unfortunately (I speak as a contributor who’s rather fond of the paper), is a bit of a case in its own right.
If social media is going to hang around - and I hope it does - then it’s got to consist of more than people piggybacking every story they can find in order to push their own narrow agenda, whether it fits or not. Otherwise I have a feeling people will be logging off in droves.
The second thing, though, is how many people are hijacking the story with their own agendas. The comments to the story I’ve quoted above are a good example. I’ll disregard the one that complains that the Observer has a ludicrously gay agenda, I’m a straight man and hadn’t noticed so it couldn’t be that pronounced, and even if it were it would probably do OK financially if every gay man and woman bought it and responded to the ads. It’s the other stuff - the ‘why don’t they just shut all the newspapers down and admit they’ve lost’ stuff - that gets to me. I said yesterday that this wasn’t some sort of arch-rivalry competition and I still think it.
Let’s look at a few facts. According to the Sunday Times, the Observer first started to go into loss in 1792 - no, really, the story is here. Clearly I wasn’t there at the time but I think we can be pretty certain this had nothing to do with social networking. It has been sold numerous times, the most recent proprietor being the Guardian Media Group, which bought it in the early 1990s - but it wasn’t doing well at the time.
Of course the current losses won’t have been helped by the profligacy of social media, and the fact that anyone can log on to the web and read the whole paper without paying is hitting a lot of newspapers very hard as they’re tied to the existing publishing model. But the idea that the most sold-off, most cast-off newspaper in what oldies like me still refer to as Fleet Street should be taken as some sort of barometer of the effects social media is having on newspapers is absurd. The Observer, unfortunately (I speak as a contributor who’s rather fond of the paper), is a bit of a case in its own right.
If social media is going to hang around - and I hope it does - then it’s got to consist of more than people piggybacking every story they can find in order to push their own narrow agenda, whether it fits or not. Otherwise I have a feeling people will be logging off in droves.
0 Comments