| Much-lauded Rutland Herald editorial page editor David Moats crosses the media divide onto radio this morning in a VPR commentary lamenting the current decline of newspapers across the nation. The topic is an important one, and one we've certainly addressed at this site on numerous occasions. Amidst the alternating praise and criticism that we pepper reporters with on an ongoing basis, we've also had a steady undercurrent of concern for the newspaper industry's health given the free speech/free press niche they fill.
And it's also a frustrating topic for those of us who, in our spare time, are filling a free speech niche of our own - either by writing for, commenting on, or simply reading new media sites, and whether those be citizen or alternative journalism websites, blogs, or even social networking sites like Facebook. Frustrating because, while many in the newspaper industry - faced with an "adapt or perish" paradigm for the future - are proactively integrating and engaging new media (see Seven Days as a great example), others are simply reacting.
And Moats, for all his talent, is doing nothing more than what Herald editorial has done in the recent past - simply shaking his fist at the heavens. In doing so, he illustrates what often is a significant impediment to the continued viability of the newspaper business model; newspaper professionals unable to (or resentful of) change (or possibly evolution). |
| Moats's commentary focuses its ire on blogs (and those that read them), starting out in generally reasonable tones before rapidly devolving to a blanket dismissal of the medium as "Blogmaniac.com."
But it underscores the reality that Moats is reacting rather than being proactive, when his industry so badly needs him to be the latter. He reacts in the same way he did during the iBrattleboro trial lawsuit. For those who may have forgotten, the administrators of iBrattleboro were sued by someone based on the content of a user comment. At the time, the letter of the law as well as legal precedent were crystal clear in that the case had no merit whatsoever. Observers across the nation rolled their eyes and declared the suit would be roundly dismissed in no time at all - which, of course, it was. Moats's editorial page, however, waxed righteous at the prospect of new media's chickens coming home to roost and even enthusiastically predicted a trip to the Supreme Court itself. A couple other Vermont traditional news sites followed suit.
It was, frankly, an irrational stance to take at the time, and we hear a bit more of that same irrationality in this VPR piece. What makes it particularly frustrating is that Moats is usually one of the most rational voices in the Vermont media. It is a shame that he loses his perspective on this issue. In the commentary itself, Moats not only myopically focuses on blogs (as though there is no other new media), he seems to take the stance that all news of any kind seems to flow from newspapers, casting his dismissive net across television and (ironically) radio in his determination to condemn those blog maniacs. Does he really believe that no other medium generates any fresh or breaking news reports? Probably not.
Does he really believe that blogs have no value or role to play in the media landscape?
I'm thinking at this point that that may well be the case.
Between the evolution of media and the economic meltdown, the storm is now raging for traditional media - but in particular newspapers. While we continue to need them as much as ever, the transition is proving fatal for many - and that's a concern. New media is an inevitable by-product of our new communications infrastructure. The economic collapse is an inevitable by-product of years of economic wrongheadedness. Both, while born in human activity, are at this point cultural forces of nature.
Shaking one's fist at (and castigating) forces of nature has a poor history of leading to anything productive. It's going to be those that harness the storm, rather than curse it, that will be around to greet the sun when the clouds inevitably clear. |
250-1
55-1
