That first step is admitting that our two main philosophies on the future aren’t likely to save the news media any time soon.

Old media traditionalists can’t be confident that newspapers will return to prominence. The decline of print (and television news, and radio) most likely will continue, as shown by the evidence in part one of this series.

New media evangelists, meanwhile, haven’t proven that they’re ready to replace print. That’s because even some of the biggest Internet sites have yet to discover a working financial model that can ensure their long-term stability, as illustrated in part two of this series.

If we admit that we as journalists don’t have all the answers, perhaps we’ll be more likely to search outside our profession for advice. We might do more to seek the input of the advertising reps and circulation managers who have witnessed newspapers’ financial decline from the front row. We might start inviting sociologists, business experts and economists to speak at our conferences, instead of just hosting speeches from the usual suspects in our field.

Then we might get a different perspective on the decline of print. We might get different ideas on what we can do to ensure our financial future.

It’s going to be harder than it sounds, as journalists are an arrogant bunch. We’ve heard for decades – perhaps centuries – that our independence is vital to the future of democracy, an idea that has bred both skepticism and ego in journalists. We question the opinions of others and believe that only we have the training and experience needed to find the right answers, the truth.

But we clearly don’t have the right answers when it comes to the future of our business. So now is not the time to reject the advice and input of others. Instead, we need to try rejecting everything we assume is correct and give fair consideration to opinions from outside our field.

Working together, perhaps we can discover new ideas that will ensure the long-term future of the news media.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS