A follow-up to yesterday's post about the deathwatch for offline media:

The (London) Sunday Times has an article today about a brewing battle between minority New York Times shareholders and the Sulzburger-Ochs family, which has controlled the paper since 1896. The dissidents want The New York Times Company to move more aggressively toward online distribution of news content, claiming that the slow pace currently being pursued by management is putting the long-term future of the paper and its other holdings at risk. In the article, reporter Dominic Rushe describes a familiar situation at North American newspapers:

"Readers are migrating online but advertising revenues are failing to keep up with the shift. Last month the company announced 100 layoffs at the 1,332-strong New York Times newsroom."

Rushe also quotes journalist and blogger Jeff Jarvis, who advocates big changes at the New York Times and even more dramatic changes at the Boston Globe, also owned the The New York Times Company. Jarvis described the changes he would recommend on his blog BuzzMachine on Saturday:

"It clearly should be more online than print — soon or immediately exclusively online. It must focus on great reporting. It should be open to all media. It should become the host of opinion and discussion about all issues — which will be tough for them. The Times will have hearty competition from both the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal but it should bravely leap ahead and recognize that Dow Jones management is scared of change (thus their mewling and successful efforts to convince Rupert Murdoch not to take down the pay wall . . . for now). It will also have competition from international news brands coming to America: the Guardian, the BBC, and possibly others."

One of the biggest assets any news media organization has is its pool of journalistic talent. The reporters, researchers, photographers, producers, and editors who report the news are hard to replace, and their years of experience, resources and contacts are even more so. While online freelancers and bloggers (such as myself) can add to the virtual conversation by expressing opinions and observations, few bloggers have the access to the same resources and contacts as professional journalists, nor do we have the same experience. The New York Times Company has to decide where the winds of change are taking the paper before technology and financial constraints make the decisions for them, at the risk of losing more of their prized assets - experienced, professional journalists.

The battle for the business direction - and perhaps the soul - of the New York Times will begin next month. As Dominic Rushe says in his Sunday Times article, "It is shaping up to be a spectacular battle."

Duncan Riley put offline news publishers on the TechCrunch Deadpool watch today. The stick that prodded him into making this decision was a poll released on February 27th by Zogby International. The poll suggests that 48 percent of Americans are now getting their news from the Internet and that two-thirds are "dissatisfied with the quality of journalism in their communities." I don't disagree with Duncan's deadpool thinking; in fact, I think its been painfully obvious to newspaper and magazine publishers for some time now.

What are we replacing the "traditional media" with? Well, there are online versions of those old-guard media voices, some of which are doing pretty well: CNN and The New York Times are both in the top 30 sites in traffic ranking according to Alexa. Of course, they're squeezed in there among Megarotic and Youporn (and you can enter those yourself, thanks), so apparently we're not just concerned about the presidential election 24 hours a day.

Some say newspapers and magazines have never been more popular, if you include their online readership. I hope that's true. The world needs the type of professional writing, editing and yes, filtering, that the traditional news media have provided for centuries.

Then there's blogging, or social media, or Web 2.0 journalism, or whatever you prefer to call it. I love social media because now there are thousands of voices expressing themselves who we never would have heard a few years ago. Some of them are even worth listening to. But do we want to depend on amateur journalists for all of our news? In a 2005 post, journalist Nicholas Carr referred to "the amorality of Web 2.0," taking note of

"...the limitations and the flaws of the blogosphere - its superficiality, its emphasis on opinion over reporting, its echolalia, its tendency to reinforce rather than challenge ideological extremism and segregation."

That's the "me too" approach to blogging, not only tolerated but encouraged by many blogging tutorials. Create posts about the hot topic of the day - as defined by the top blogs - and you'll gain readers. More readers equals higher potential income. Note that I said "create posts," not "write something original." If we choose to comment on the news, we need to bring something of value - add something to the conversation - and not just parrot what the market leaders have said. We need to do some reporting, some original research. Too many blogs are guilty of nonstop namedropping, pandering and link baiting.

I understand how the system works. You do need to make connections and use the power of the network to get noticed, so I'm not saying never mention Mashable or GigaOM in a post. But make sure you're participating in the conversation and not just nodding your head in agreement.

The mainstream media is guilty of the same sins, of course. They taught the rest of us how to pander and parrot and namedrop. And they bear a significant responsibility for the dissatisfaction the respondents in the Zogby poll expressed with their local media. For years, consolidation, both in print and broadcast media, has gutted the quality of local news coverage. Smaller newspapers have been folded when they didn't add enough to the bottom line and local radio has been largely turned over to 24-hour syndicated programming, leaving community coverage lacking. I'm not putting them on an ivory pedestal.

We can't use that as an excuse, though. If social media/Web 2.0/blogging is sending offline media to the deadpool, we need to consider adopting more of the traditional ethics and standards that the best journalists have demonstrated for generations. There are some outstanding blogger/writer/journalists already, and hopefully many more to follow them down this lightly worn path. Will you be one of them?