Mission Impossible?

Should Newspapers Stop Being Newspapers?

I share your fear that API and others are telling newspapers to transform themselves so completely that they’ll be out of the news business.

I recall that in the late 1990s, the Thomson Newspaper Group (which once owned Bridgeport Post in Connecticut) left newspapers completely. Turned out to be an astute move -- they bought Gales Directories and other “information services” companies, and moved data online. The move led to success in the brave new world of information services / online information, and they avoided the downturn that awaited newspapers in the next decade.

But Thomson is not in the news business any more. So as business people, I admire Thomson, but as one who values news, I hate them. They found a way to survive, but they gave up their core mission.

If you read "Good to Great," you'll see other examples of companies that moved out of their original business and became great in new ways and in other competitive arenas. The best example, I think, is Kimberly-Clark; their competitor (Scott Paper) told Jim Collins that they, too, could have succeeded as Kimberly-Clark did -- but they weren't willing to sell their paper mills! (That's exactly the thing that distinguished Kimberly-Clark from Scott, the author points out.)

That story could become the story of the newspaper industry: newspapers could have succeeded in new realms, but we weren't willing to give up our truth-telling mission. (We are willing to give up our presses, I think. We all see digital is better.)

It just seems that the business model for newspapers was designed to support the truth-telling mission of journalism (see "News Values," by Jack Fuller), and a radical change in the business model will clearly undermine the journalistic mission.

So, should newspapers stop being newspapers? I say no, but I don't see any other way to survive. I guess it's time to get our resumes ready, and send them to Thomson . . . . or Kimberly-Clark.