It’s been an awful year for print journalism. Something like 8,000 journalists have lost their jobs this year, and it’s not even September yet.
It’s a big number, but it’s hard to get your mind around. It reminds me of that Stalin quote, something about “one death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” Something like that. Right now, all those layoffs and buyouts — just a statistic.
Anyway, I was in a couple of situations today where I felt — keenly — the reduction in U.S. journalism staffing, and also in its reach and ambition. At the Olympics.
This is what brought it home to me:
First, I rode a bus back from the beach volleyball final with David Leon Moore of USA Today today, a former colleague at the San Bernardino Sun.
We were talking about who is not at these Games …
First, we reviewed the entire roster of greater-L.A. print journalists at these Games.
The L.A. Times has a decent number. A dozen or more. But after that?
Two from the Orange County Register. David Lassen of the Ventura County Star. And me, freelancing. That’s it. The Times people, and four others.
San Bernardino isn’t here. Riverside isn’t here. The L.A. Daily News isn’t here. Actually, no one is here from the L.A. News Group, which had three reporters at both Sydney 2000 and Athens 2004. Zero this time. No one is covering Long Beach’s athletes, or San Gabriel’s. Orange County had at least three writers at Athens, and it might have been more.
David and I talked about people we noticed weren’t here. He mentioned that the Atlanta Journal Constitution, which was the home paper for the 1996 Olympics, and had something like 100 people covering those Games … had two people at these Olympics, and only one was a sports person.
I talked about my belief that only three U.S. print news organizations are covering these Games in the sort of comprehensive manner that maybe two dozen papers did only four years ago — the New York Times, USA Today and the Tribune group, which is made up of a batch of big papers (Chicago, L.A., Orlando, etc.) who all used to do this by themselves.
And here is the second moment it hit me that we are in the middle of a print holocaust.
It was in the “mixed zone” at the track and field stadium.
Now, traditionally, the mixed zone (where athletes walk down corridors, going past journalists) is a free-for-all of American reporters, all jostling for position as our athletes come through. Maybe 30, 40 people.
This time? There might have been a dozen of us. Total. To cover the biggest track meet in the world. One that happens once every four years.
One veteran reporter from New York made a comment about how “polite” it was. And, well, of course it was … because when there’s barely a dozen of you, you don’t have to elbow someone aside to get close enough to hear what Allyson Felix has to say.
Ultimately, this should matter to American readers. To American news consumers of all sorts.
Even four years ago, you had dozens of sources of news for big events like the Olympics. You could compare the New York Times story to the Atlanta story to the Seattle story, the Dallas, Orlando, Philly and, yes, the Riverside and L.A. Daily News stories, too.
Now, it’s a handful of sources. Instead of every athlete being chased by at least two or three reporters, it might be one. It might be none.
A final melancholy note about tonight: Beijing organizers set up an interview room here at the track stadium that has no fewer than 240 seats in it and the ability to generate translations in two languages.
However, for the press conference for the women’s 200 meters … fewer than a dozen reporters were in the room. Four years ago, eight years ago, there would have been 100 reporters in that room, and at least 20 or 30 Americans.
Now, there were a handful, and the Beijing organizers seemed embarrassed for the athletes that the room was so empty. (Later in the night, they had volunteers go through the work room, asking reporters if they would like to go see the press conference for the 110-meter hurdles medalists.)
Bottom line: Your news sources are drying up. You believe you’re drowning in information, and you are. But it’s of a lesser quality, and it’s coming from fewer primary sources. If those relative handful of reporters don’t get it right … well, nobody will be there to backstop them.
This is not a good thing for consumers and, when it pertains to topics bigger than sports, not good for the country or the world.
14 responses so far ↓
1 Brian Robin // Aug 21, 2008 at 9:02 AM
And here’s the ironic point… there were reporters in Beijing who would have been at the PGA Championship — a major golf tournament, if you’re keeping track of these things — had this not been an Olympic year.
Two weeks ago, the press room at Oakland Hills for the final major of the year, resembled a Northern Trust Open media center on steroids. In an average year, about 300 credentials are issued for a Northern Trust.
There couldn’t have been more than 350 for the PGA — about 150 fewer than you’d see for a domestic major.
Papers which weren’t there: The LA Times (amazing), the Chicago Sun-Times, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (whose reporter was in Beijing), the Orlando Sentinel, the Palm Beach Post, the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle, the MIami Herald (which didn’t go to the U.S. Open either), the Tampa Tribune, the Florida Times-Union, the St. Petersburg Times, the Denver Post, the Rocky Mt. News and any paper from the Pacific Northwest.
in fact, there was ONE reporter — Randy Mell of Ft. Lauderdale — from south of the Mason-Dixon Line. One reporter at a major championship from between Texas and Washington D.C. — a golf-crazy area.
No, Paul. It isn’t a good thing on numerous levels. Papers figure if they can get away without covering something (and Tiger not being there played into this decision), they won’t cover it again.
And the spiral perpetuates itself, with nobody but the bean-counters and double-speaking publishers the better for it.
2 Eugene Fields // Aug 21, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Welcome to the new world of information. News sources aren’t drying up – Large metropolitan newspapers are.
Heck, I WORK for a newspaper and I haven’t read 1 article we’ve written about the Olympics (including the 2 features I wrote).
Why not? Because I wake up at 6 a.m. and read the current news on my PDA.
The death we need to be marking is the death of a few sources being the gatekeepers of information.
Paul – you’re reaching a more diverse audience with your blog than you did in your column. That’s just the way of the world.
Until the people at the top of the journalistic food chain figure that out and become part of the information flow, more journalists will be collateral damage.
3 nickj // Aug 21, 2008 at 8:49 PM
i think anyone who wants to know whats going on in the olympics can find it anywhere–in the papers or online. yes, less reporters, but you are all saying the same thing anyways, no? we can check you out to get your take, and the times to get theirs, but they say the same thing….in this case, the us choked on the relays, the chinese are cheating(?) in gymnastics and the weather there is pretty crummy.
4 Nate Ryan // Aug 22, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Eugene:
I’m not sure if I understand your point, but here’s mine:
News sources ARE drying up — or at least the ones that actually deliver news and not “analysis” or commentary or rewritten AP/wire hash or press releases tossed on some web site. That’s abundantly clear from PaulO’s post about coverage at one of the world’s biggest sporting events. There’s fewer people to describe what’s actually going on, and that means there’s fewer stories actually being told about what’s happening, meaning that the overarching understanding suffers of what’s actually happening.
I’m witnessing it on a weekly basis now on the auto racing beat. There are two dozen or so papers that sent reporters to 15-20 races three years ago that are staffing 1 or 2 races — if any — this year (including the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the paper of record for NASCAR’s largest TV market in terms of eyeballs watching the race).
That’s bad all around, and not just from the standpoint of less competition to break stories. There’s fewer stories being generated, fewer questions being asked as attendance dwindles for driver interviews, and that means fewer angles are being explored.
With respect to Nickj’s point, yes, it’s always going to be possible to find out what’s going on from a cursory viewpoint, but the days of “comprehensive” coverage that newspapers once screamed about delivering are largely fading, at least for now.
5 Mike // Aug 22, 2008 at 4:07 PM
On the other hand, you can go to Yahoo or NBCSports.com and get utter saturation coverage of the Olympics. So why would your average plugged-in, Internet based reader in 2008 give a rat’s ass whether the Long Beach paper is there? The world is changing, there are those who are adapting and those who are getting left behind. Pick one.
6 Nate Ryan // Aug 23, 2008 at 1:26 PM
OK, I’m trying to make sense of these responses and best I can tell they seem to be permeated with a “The Revolution Starts Now, Man!”-type attitude.
Here’s why I think that’s still wrong. I am the new owner of a BlackBerry, too, and I enjoy using the toy to get news from the Internet (and to read PaulO’s blog).
But in getting that news, there’s a lot of duplication. For example, the two sites listed above — Yahoo and NBCOlympics.com — largely have Olympics sections filled with the same AP wire copy, aside from the occasional columnist/reporter (wojo for yahoo; abrhamson for the times).
If you want to read about little-known Americans who didn’t fare well, you’re out of luck unless their hometown papers went the extra mile to send someone. And that’s happening far less this year than ever before…think about what happens if the Riverside, LANG, Temecula and other SoCal papaers weren’t lucky enough to have PaulO there — on his own dime — writing about their locals. The coverage would be minimal at best. And I think we all can agree that’s bad, or at least you can if you’re a fan of journalism and covering all the angles of a big event.
What strikes me as strange is that in these times of allegedly a newfound “hyperlocal” emphasis at newspapers, much of the Olympics coverage seemingly is the antithesis of that trend.
7 Landon Negri // Aug 25, 2008 at 12:24 AM
What I’ve found is that newspapers aren’t hyperlocal because of some great ode to a journalism frontier, though that probably rings more true at some of the smaller paper like mine (Temecula), Victorville, and so on. They’re hyperlocal because it’s cheap, and when money has to suddenly be spent, no one wants to be hyperlocal anymore. ‘Cant you get a stringer to do it?,” is what I’ve heard countless times.
Who can afford to go to Beijing, when folks are losing jobs at every turn? And it will stay like this until our industry can finally learn how to monotize the Internet. Look, our circulation numbers across the board may not be rising, but our web hits our going through the roof, multiplied by 10 in my newspapaer’s case. How can we NOT make money on that? Because we, as an industry, don’t know how….
8 Eugene Fields // Aug 26, 2008 at 9:20 AM
My point was that I can get coverage of a large event like the Olympics from ESPN, Yahoo, CNN.com, MSMBC.com, AOL – or even the Olympic site.
Not to be redundant, but I don’t want to read yesterday’s news tomorrow when I can get it now.
There’s 1 main difference in having a local paper cover it live vs. taking it from AP or a stringer or getting it from online:
The other sources don’t directly mention the 86 U.S. Olympians from Orange County and the 3 who aren’t representing the US (numbers are off the top of my head – so forgive me if I’m off).
Yes, there are less PRINT media out there – we’re a dying breed. Unfortunately for many of us, the age of immediate information has passed our editors by.
And instead of jumping on the bandwagon, many of them chose to either ignore or try to hold on to the status quo, which has resulted in plunging readership, plunging revenues and unfortunately, plunging staffing at said papers.
The local coverage will always be there – whether it’s via phone or email interviews – But the days of traveling because “we should be there” are coming to an end, my friends
9 Ian // Aug 26, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Nate, I agree with you to a point, but I also have to point something else out: Hyperlocal isn’t working for metros, and they’re already dumping it.
I live in the epicenter of the hyperlocal synergy. Rob Curley, who started in Topeka, then Lawrence and created the model for hyperlocal print/web integration, just left the washington post because they’ve deemed their experiment a failure. He’s off to the Las Vegas Sun, which has already reinvented itself as a quasi-non-daily except online.
To your point about fewer people telling about what’s actually happening, that’s true, but it’s also redundant in today’s marketplace. It would be great if all the metros sent people, but they’re all owned by what, six companies? You worked in Gannett. why send someone from each market when you have PaulO to write the GNS gamer? I’m not approving, I’m just saying it’s an extension of what was already happening 20 years ago. The Web just allows to to see it more now.
As for the analysis comment, you’re dead on. But in the grand scheme of things, let’s be real: Most papers are cutting their local city hall reporters and medical reporters. Are sportswriters narcissistic enough to expect any paper under a major major metro’s size is going to even THINK about going to a major sporting event away from home anymore? PaulO’s trip proves the point. Each paper got what they needed for a lot less money. And they still got to keep their night cops person. And even though sports is sexy, obits and school board meetings are the actual meat of a local paper. Do the local feature when Johnny Smalltown makes his triumphant (or tragic) return home from Beijing. Same story.
As I watched my friends in Sacramento get another buyout offer yesterday, I felt sad. Just sad. But I have to agree with Eugene that being at every event is just downright unrealistic.
10 Albert // Aug 26, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Buyout, layoffs and downsizing are not exclusive to the print journalism industry. Finance, IT, Banking, Manufacturing….you name it…all industries go through peeks and valleys. I’ve been out of the print for about 10 years and have worked in other sectors. I have been on several occasions fearful for my job security.
Readership is up across the board. I spend more time perusing the news on-line than I ever did reading a daily. The mere fact that I am able to read PaulO and other former colleagues on a regular basis is a tiny example of the greater audience out there. All I know is that, I would not have the chance to read Paulo if it weren’t for the Net.
11 Nate Ryan // Aug 27, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Ian and Eugene:
I appreciate the replies and I respect the points you make.
I think you still are missing mine: More people telling more stories is better for everybody. I think that’s indisputable. It’s not just “mentioning” the people from Orange County. It’s coverage, man. Stories aren’t being done on American athletes that would have been done 10 years ago. And with all due respect, phoners and e-mail interviews ain’t the same (and are classic examples of sounds great in theory but rarely work in practice). You might be ready to concede that battle, and just cavalierly say, “man, too bad that era’s over.” Others might say it’s hard to let go that easily.
Again, I’m in favor of getting my news now, and it’s great that there are so many sites from which to get it. But if the story on all those sites is the same, what’s the great benefit? It’d be nice if someone can figure out how to turn the Internet into a revenue-generating machine that can support the kind of staffing once seen in the golden age of newspapers, but there’s been no signs that I know of to suggest that’s happening.
I’m not trying to be narcissistic by suggesting that every major metro paper in America should have sent boatloads of people to the Olympics. I’m saying it’s bad that many no longer can send even one, and there’s no recourse to fix that problem.
And I certainly not arguing that they should do it at the expense of covering local government and politics, that’s bad, too. Everything about having fewer reporters working for legitimate media outlets in this country is bad.
Again, fewer journalists = less journalism = less informed public. Bad.
12 Ian // Aug 27, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Agreed, Albert. But when you read the stories from something like, let’s say, the Super Bowl, do they start to all sound alike after a while?
Remember this from pulling wire stories. You hope for the NYT wire one because it’s longer or the certain Knight Ridder (McClatchy) one from Charlotte or the Ed Hinton (when he was there) for NASCAR — or Nate Ryan. 🙂
Because there really isn’t the personal access that there used to be, everyone is using the same set of quotes, the same presser, the same flack-driven items. So where is the incentive for Sacramento to send someone to the NBA Finals when the Kings aren’t in it? There isn’t one because the stories from the KC Star or the Miami Herald are going to be just as good or better.
And on the issue of readership, I completely agree with you. There is more to read, and I spend a much longer time reading than I did when I worked at newspapers. But readership online does not translate to profit margin, and that’s the key point. circulation’s decline is the most relevant point until the companies learn how to actually monetize online operations. And they’re not working on that hard enough. Instead of hiring six more reporters to create a 24-hour cops desk, they cut the one cops reporter they have.
For all of you still working in it, I feel really bad because the people in the suits are only hearing the investors and not the customers. And I think the medium is going to hit a rock bottom of sorts soon before it can truly reinvent itself.
Unfortunately, too many people I respect and admire will be driven out before that happens.
13 Ian // Aug 27, 2008 at 9:03 AM
And Nate, your point is very well taken and I agree, mostly. I guess my point is that there aren’t fewer journalists or less journalism all the time.
There are fewer print journalists.
There are more voices than ever on radio, online and on TV. And this media era isn’t fully formed yet, so it’s a little ugly. And as a somewhat old-school print guy, I still look down my nose at what many of these people do, but now that I’m not in newspapers, I’m shocked every day at the lack of difference in a real person’s mind. You at USAT, the agate clerk doing it at the Bee, Mike Massaro, the blogger on Yahoo!… all exactly the same guy in the eyes of John Q. Public.
Finally, I’d like to think that Beijing is a bit of a cost anomaly. This isn’t going to Europe. It’s WAAAAAY more expensive.
And double finally, I hope you understand that I’m not AGREEING with the way things are, nor am I suggesting that print reporters should give up the fight. I will always read the Sunday New York Times with my coffee and raisin bran on the kitchen table. I’m just trying to provide my perspective in the 2-plus years I’ve been out.
14 Ian // Aug 27, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Sorry, last point, I swear: You mentioned “legitimate” media outlets. That’s not something the public understands.
PaulO is a respected and veteran sportswriter, but this isn’t a “legitimate” media outlet.
Or is it? In today’s world, it is. And to the regular world, so is every other outlet. Again, I’m not agreeing with this sea change. I’m just pointing it out.
Leave a Comment