USA Today's Kevin Maney has a very intriguing column on what Internet entrepreneurs and thinkers (a.k.a. consultants) would do if they owned a newspaper. What he discovered was this: "These tech folks don't really have any radical, interesting ideas for newspapers".
That's interesting because you figure a group of people who have embraced the digital distribution and consumption of content would have all kinds of ideas on how to kick-start newspapers into the Web age. You would figure someone would suggest that newspapers simply give away their paper and Web content for free and drive revenue from advertising. Or perhaps newspapers should just do a better job of embracing Internet technology such as RSS, IM, e-mail bulletins, personalized home pages, etc.
Part of the problem facing geeks when it comes to assessing how newspapers should operate is they have little or no knowledge of how newspapers actually work. Sure, they read newspapers - probably less than they did a few years ago - and many of them have all kinds of good ideas about how the Web can deliver content to different kinds of consumers BUT they have no clue of what a newsroom looks like and how reporters do their jobs. It means they don't understand the industry culture and why newspapers are having such a difficult time trying to get some more Web mojo.
Truth be told, newspapers must be a lot more aggressive when it comes to the Web. But it's going to be an extremely difficult process because newspapers have been operating in the much the same way for a 100 years (aside from reporters and editing using computers instead of typewriters). It's not just putting content on the Web but it means changing how content is created, who creates it and when it's published.
The typical reporter, for example, writes one or two stories a day over a nine-hour shift, which gives them time to think, interview, have a coffee, and talk with their editors. But the Web means reporters have to dramatically change how they work. They'll have to write stores in minutes rather than hours; they'll have to do blogs, podcasts and videoblogs at a time when changing economics means they'll have to work harder than ever because the size of newsrooms are shrinking. To really get reporters to buy in, it may take another generation that is more comfortable to multi-task.
In the meantime, newspapers have to focus on no-frills blocking and tackling. They have to embrace the Web with more enthusiasm, they have become leaner, they have to focus less on the news and more on providing readers with smart, well written stories that provide insight and perspective, and focus more energy on covering local stories rather than national and international.
The bottom line is there is no silver bullet for newspapers. They are going to lose readers, they are going to lose advertisers, they are going to lose reporters to maintain profits, and there will probably be much fewer newspapers around 10 years from now. There will be a place for newspapers but people are consuming information in new ways, and it may not mean reading a newspaper every day or, for that matter, at all.
For more thoughts, check out Ethan Stock, who works for a company called Zvents that focuses on providing online local information, and BlackRimGlasses, who would eliminate newspapers and make them all digital (after a dramatic restructuring of operations).