The next miracle (v11.1): Owen Youngman

Knight Professor of Digital Media Strategy, Medill / Northwestern

Owen YoungmanOwen YoungmanOwen Youngman

The death of ‘place,’ the death of papers

Richard Rodriguez: "The civic fabric has been ruptured." Richard Rodriguez: “The civic fabric has been ruptured.”

I don’t think the Chronicle is dying so much as I think that San Francisco is dying. When a metropolitan newspaper of that magnitude  stops publication it indicates that there has been a death of the metropolitan ideal.

via Richard Rodriguez: The Death of the SF Chronicle – NAM.

In 1995, Witold Rybczynski published his classic assessment of the devolopment of the American city, City Life. One reason I remember it so clearly is his long lool at Chicago, where “in many ways twentieth-century urbanism got its start.”  More famously, of course, he argued that it was perfectly OK that American cities were not at all like Paris. He refers only glancing to the role of newspapers, though many writers have documented the ways in which the fates and fortunes of cities and their newspapers have always been intertwined.

I was reminded of all this today when I encountered an interview with Richard Rodriguez, the American writer whose prominence stems partly from  his memoir Hunger of Memory and partly from his ideas about ethnicity and identity, at the website of New America Media.

The edited transcript (and the whole interview, provided as an MP3 on the site) constitute a powerful alternative take on 2009′s inescapable “death of journalism” discussions, articles, posts, and memorial services.  Not because the idea is entirely sui generis, obviously; if newspapers and cities grew together, it might well follow that they might die together. But because of Rodriguez’s argument that “Americans are going to news outlets, not for what news used to provide — the sense of the local, the sense of the parochial, the sense of this place–but rather almost as an escape from place.”  In fact, he says that even the metaphors we use about the Internet – “the ether,” “cyberspace,” “the superhighway” – are “almost against the spatial.”

imagesThe jumping-off point is a question about the San Francisco Chronicle, as are several of the examples and explanations Rodriguez cites.  But Rodriguez’s thesis is as much about the idea of a city as it is about the fate of The City, and it summoned up for me a definition of a city that I think I learned in philosophy class: a community founded on common acceptance of social norms.

When I Googled this last idea today, I was reminded that this is close to the Stoic idea of a city, as a community of virtuous people, “something morally good” (Clement of Alexandria).  Does it follow that if a city dies, the moral good that newspapers can do must die with it?  I’m not ready to go there yet.  But let me give the last words to Rodriguez, and then you can go read or listen yourself at one of the links above:

“The civic fabric has been ruptured. It may be 30 years in the making, but it’s happened now, and we blame the Internet or we blame computers; we blame children because they have an addiction to buttons instead of to paper. But these are really afterthoughts.  These are not the reasons the newspapers are dying…By the 1980′s, there already is the sense that San Francisco is losing interest in itself….People tend not to know what they need until they lose it.”

Hmmm. Should Peter Pan have signed up for unlimited texting?

It was 1995 or so when I first came across Sherry Turkle. Her book, “Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet,” was intriguing academics, scaring parents, and launching incomprehensible book reviews from coast to coast.

Now, a quick word of caution: You can’t apply today’s context to the title. The MIT professor’s book was focused not on the just-emerging World Wide Web, but on the role-playing games that had been proliferating online and the people who inhabited the MUDs – multiple-user domains – that helped define them. Guess what: some of them viewed “RL” (real life) as just another role-playing game … another “screen” to be navigated through … and as such a world no more or less valid than that inhabited by any of their avatars.

But no, that’s not the scary part. Continue reading

Maybe, just maybe, you should merge with me. (Not.)

Well a crazy woman and a neurotic man
Should never, ever, ever make a wedding plan…

– “Maybe Just Maybe,” Bruce Roper

===

The Saturday after the AOL-Time Warner merger was announced in January, 2000, I appeared at an Internet conference at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management.  I got a really swell gym bag out of the deal, but first an audience member asked what I thought of the deal, as part of a Q-and-A.  

I frankly don’t remember what the panel was about, but I do remember my answer to the question: I quoted the first two lines from the Sons of the Never Wrong’s “Maybe Just Maybe,” reproduced above.

After the tittering subsided, I said that, after nearly a decade of working with AOL at the Tribune and half a decade of running the Chicago Tribune’s web sites, I didn’t see a business model that made the price remotely make sense.  I was back on the “print side” just then, having emerged alive but 50 pounds heavier after 4 years as Chicago Tribune director of interactive media, but it wasn’t where I was sitting that made me say that.  It was the uncertainty that hung over every minute – and every decision, whether minute or not – related to the Internet those days.

“Because the deal does not carry a set price for Time Warner shares, investors who choose to hold the stock for the long haul must not only believe in the Internet as a place to shop and gather information, but also as a profitable business,” the New York Times wrote on the morning after the deal was announced.  

The math said that the merged company would have a capitalization of $350 billion. Today, TWX closed at $21.83, which works out to $26 billion.  And today I am thinking about this because of another Times piece, Time Warner Expects to Spin Off AOL:  ”Time Warner is inching closer to an untangling of what many consider one of the worst mergers in American corporate history by shedding America Online,” it begins.

N0w, I’m no genius. I didn’t make any money on the Internet bust, though I kind of expected there would be one.  I was hoping that media companies would leverage their transitory moment of strength while the Web world regrouped.  I was thinking that Time Warner was putting itself in position not to participate in this incipient Indian summer, and I was OK with that.  And I was remembering some of the AOL people with whom I had, shall we say, philosophical disagreements.

The substance of those disagreements?  They tended to talk about deals, stock prices, liquidity events, and leverage.  I tended to talk about users, journalism, community service, and utility.  ”You know the trouble with you newspaper guys?”  one of them snarled at a few of us in a meeting one day.  ”The way you think, you’ll never be millionaires.”

Fast forward to today, and  the last quote in today’s Times, from Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes: ”We know that most M&A in the media sectory has not created value.”

Indeed.  We are too soon old and too late smart.  Can we get back to talking about the audience now?  It won’t get us out of the current bust overnight, but it ought to create a sustainable future.