Old riddle, same answer?

What's black and white and read all over?

I remember when I first heard that riddle. I was at my grandparents house, a small farm in southwest Illinois. It was a farm in every way imaginable. There was a small white house, a big red barn, a chicken coop, a silo, oh-so-many fields, even an old farmer. That old farmer was my grandfather. He would get up every morning before sunrise to make breakfast (eggs sunny-side-up) and read the local newspaper.

On that farm 15 years ago, that riddle made sense. Newspapers were still a pretty text-heavy reliable medium for the day's news. So newspapers were primarily black and white, especially in Hoyleton, Illinois. They were also read all over. Sure television and radio had made some inroads, but newspapers stood strong, offering more breadth and depth of content than 30 minutes of television that included commercials.

Now, my grandfather still gets up every morning to read the paper, but he's a rarity some 15 years later. Just across the street from my grandfather, my uncle (who now runs the farm) and his children log onto e-mail accounts, flip on the television, surf the Web, make calls via cell phones, all usual interactions in today's interconnected society.

Sure, everyone knows about the Internet, just another challenge to the newspaper industry. But the Internet doesn't offer just one challenge; it threatens newspapers in several ways. First, the obvious speed factor. News sites can publish news in minutes, much quicker than the 12 to 24 hours someone waits for his or her newspaper. This speed relates to the way audiences live as well. Who has time to sit down and read an entire news section? or even flip through one to find the most interesting topic?

Secondly, the Internet opens up news sources. Not only are news sites a threat, but the common citizen blogger. I won't delve into this too much since we've already covered it.

If the Internet in itself isn't enough evidence, look at the recent development of the newspapers themselves. Black and white? Not so much. Designers talk about making newspapers "accessible" to their audiences, and I should know because I'm one of them. After Sept. 11, "increasingly, Americans got their news in bits and bytes." (Downie and Kaiser, p. 27) Photos, graphics and short blurbs cover yesterday's text-heavy pages. Blurbs and alternative story formats are used to keep readers' interest. But if newspapers are going to bounce back from the Web attack, they need to be looking at content.

"Today's finest reporters are better educated and more professional than their forbears; many are recognized experts in their fields." (Downie and Kaiser, p. 9) Newspapers, and the rest of the old media for that matter, need to better utilize their best resource - their reporters. New media has evidenced that audiences do not require degrees or expertise to give them the straight facts. Facts are easy and easily available.

Journalists often talk about giving audiences the facts so the citizens can draw conclusions for themselves. Unfortunately, today's audience wants more information beyond the facts. Trained journalists are just the people to give it to them.

In "Beyond News," Mitchell Stephens tells the story of a Wall Street Journal reporter in Iraq whose private e-mail was posted on the Web. The e-mail, though more opinionated and controversial, was more interesting to the audiences. Stephens ends the story, "Outside the strictures of mainstream journalism, Fassihi ... did not have to attempt the magic trick American reporters have been attempting for a hundred years now: making themselves and their conclusions disappear." (CJR, p. 36)

These strictures are what must be reexamined. Trained journalists, or experts, should be allowed to deduce conclusions based on their gathered facts. This may not be traditionally objective, but when the facts are so readily available, the conclusions are what newspapers have to offer.

Now, I will pause here to make a distinction. I do not support the blurring of serious journalism by allowing pundits whose qualifications include interruption and vanity to make conclusions via newspaper. I do support logical fact-based conclusions by expert journalists who have garnered access to issue-oriented information and who are open to all sides of that information.

"Free news on the Internet is already competing with newstand sales and paid subscriptions for magazines and newspapers." (Downie and Kaiser, p. 11) It is clear that the currently provided content isn't making the cut for audiences' attention. There must be an added value; there must be something more. Old media, with their star journalists and educated staffs, have the resources. They just need to take the news forward.

So, will newspapers ever be black and white and read all over again? Probably not black and white, but I believe they can continue to be read all over.

Sources:
Downie Jr., Leonard and Kaiser, Robert G. The News about the News. NY: Random House, 2002.
Stephens, Mitchell. Beyond News. Columbia Journalism Review: Jan./Feb. 2007.