报纸眼里不能只有钱

    讨论报纸行业的困境时，有一点需要非常明确，那就是报纸行业不同于其他买卖，或者说它不应该只是一门生意。报纸行业还肩负着公共服务的职能，但这通常会与出版商们对利益最大化的追求产生矛盾。实际上，这一点也是报纸读者人数和收入持续缩水时报社面临的核心问题：美国许多家报纸背后的公司大多以追逐利润为主要目的，甚至是唯一目的，这无益于新闻行业的发展。报纸要想在短期内维持利润，唯一的途径只有削减成本。

    比如，新奥尔良《时代花絮报》（Times-Picayune）的幕后老板是先进出版公司（Advance Publications）。近期，该公司宣布，公司将把该报纸由日刊缩减为每周三期，同时将进行裁员。据报道，该报纸实际上依然在盈利——只不过盈利能力满足不了先进出版公司的胃口。

    然而，人们在讨论这家报纸的艰难经历时忽略了上述事实。有人甚至故意忽略了其他一些显而易见的事实：《时代花絮报》的读者渗透率——即实际阅读该报的潜在读者比例——在美国名列前茅，超过了75%。虽然先进出版公司辩称，此举是实现报纸数字化的大胆举动（公司承诺要加大对公司网站的重视，实际上这个网站恶评如潮）。而且，事实上，新奥尔良超过三分之一的人口无法上网。此外这座城市尚未从卡特丽娜飓风引发的洪水灾难中完全恢复，当地政治上的腐败问题也让这座城市焦头烂额，而今年秋天，新奥尔良又将成为美国第一座没有纸质日报的大城市。

    在有些城市，“数字化优先”的策略或许是不错的选择。而且，对于有些报纸来说，不论是压缩还是彻底取消纸质报纸，数字化都是很好的主意。但无论如何，新奥尔良绝对不适合做第一个吃螃蟹的城市，虽然削减周一、周二、周四和周六的版本在短期内可以提高报纸利润。

    《纽约时报》（New York Times）媒体作家戴维•卡尔在对先进出版公司的决定大肆称颂时，根本没有提到报纸实现盈利的问题。科技博客GigaOM的马休•英格拉姆对这个问题也避而不谈。英格拉姆是数字化必胜理论的坚定支持者和一名优秀的“公民记者”，他认为，先进出版公司的这一决定更加证明，“行将就木”的纸质媒体即将成为历史，报业公司最好现在就开始向网络阵地转移。或许是这样吧，但不管怎样，根本不提《时代花絮报》目前还是一家盈利企业的事实，又有什么资格讨论这个话题？先进出版公司的决定并非是对数字化未来进行投资，这一举动恰恰证明了这家报业公司的企图：它只想尽快将每一分利润都捞进口袋里。

    One of the challenges of discussing the besieged newspaper business is that it's not like just any business, or it shouldn't be. There is a public-service component to newspapering that is often at odds with the pursuit of maximum profits. That, in fact, is the industry's core problem as readership and revenue continue to dwindle: Many of the nation's newspapers are owned by corporations that are concerned primarily or solely with profits, which often isn't good for journalism. The only way to maintain profits in the short-term is to cut costs.

    The New Orleans Times-Picayune, for example, is owned by Advance Publications. That company recently announced that it would soon cut production from daily to three days a week, and that there will be layoffs. The paper reportedly is profitable -- it's just not profitable enough for Advance.

    Many of the discussions of the paper's travails leave out that fact. Some also leave out some other salient facts: The Times-Picayune's penetration -- the proportion of the potential audience that actually reads the paper -- is among the highest in the country, at more than 75 percent. And although Advance spins its plans as a bold step into the digital future (it promises more emphasis on its typically terrible Web site), more than a third of New Orleans' population has no Internet access. Nevertheless, that beleaguered city, still recovering from the flooding after Hurricane Katrina and dealing with an endemically corrupt political culture, this fall will become the first major American city without a daily printed newspaper.

    A "digital first" strategy might be a great idea in some cities. It might even be a good idea for some papers to cut back or even eliminate their print editions. But New Orleans is perhaps the worst possible place to try it first, even if dispensing with the Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday editions will improve the paper's margins in the short run.

    David Carr, a media writer for the New York Times, didn't mention that the paper is profitable in his (otherwise fine) writeup of the decision. Nor did GigaOM's Mathew Ingram -- a reliable digital triumphalist and champion of "citizen journalism" -- in either of his writeups. Ingram sees the decision as just more evidence that "dead tree" media (he actually uses that hoary phrase) is on its way out, and that newspaper companies had better get with the online program. Maybe so, but you simply can't address this topic without even mentioning that the Times-Picayune is, right now, a profitable enterprise. Advance's decision isn't an investment in the digital future -- it's simply proof that Advance wants to squeeze every nickel it can out of the operation as quickly as possible.