I love the web. I write and edit for the web professionally. I understand how web sites fit together, much the way a mechanic probably views a car. The web appeals to the critical thinker in me, the ADHD part of me and the part of me that truly enjoys dumb shit.
My background, though, is in magazine journalism. I went to one of the best schools in the country to study how to write for magazines. Were it not time prohibitive, I would be a magazine junkie in much the way that I am a blog junkie. As it is, I restrain myself. I read The New Yorker like a Born-Again reads the Bible. I look forward to Tuesdays when Time comes so I can read something fluffy. I subscribe to some other magazines (Bon Appetit, W, Condé Nast Traveler, Glamour and Modern Bride) but they are only read when in between The New Yorker and Time. And books. Because I am happiest when my “To Read” book pile is at least four thick.
An article is being written for The Atlantic where the writer is exploring the future of general interest magazines. It’s a good question. A fabulous question, really. In high school I dated this boy, for two weeks twice, who suggested that in the future I would read all of my books on a computer. My reaction was an angry one. Aside from the general eye fatigue that I get from reading things online, books hold a special, physical joy for me. I like the feel of old paper. I like the noise a book makes when you crack its spine. I like the comfort I feel when I book is nearby.
But the fact remains that you no longer need to rely on printed materials to get your news. You haven’t for a long time. But since I am pretty sure we can all agree that television news is crap, the medium of print has long been a reliable source of the truth. (Or some writers’ version of the truth.) But if you can get that same truth online for free, why pay for it?
The bibliophile that I am, despite infamous frugality, I will continue to pay for my magazines and books. Passing up on those would be like fasting. I can’t do it. I know I don’t represent general consensus in that. All the true journalists I went to school with aren’t going to like what I have to say, but I think there is a way to save the print medium. It’s called marketing.
When I was in college, journalism was split into several tracks: newspaper journalism, magazine journalism, public relations, advertising, television and radio journalism. (A sixth track has been added since I graduated for online journalism.) But basically there was this prejudice in the department (every academic area has its prejudices and airs about itself) that print journalism was real and PR and marketing were not. At the school newspaper, which I wrote for, at the end of the year we gave an award to the “Person Most Likely to Go into PR.” It was sort of a slam, unless that’s what you were studying anyway and even then it was still a little bit of a slam.
But marketing, good marketing anyway, takes knowing your market. Magazines need to deliver the news and deliver it well. They need to be as unbiased as possible, or at least open about their bias. But how much coverage types of news receive can change based on the audience.
For instance, despite by abovementioned love of Time, I would be a much happier reader if they would minimize broader their non-hard news section. I currently skip a lot of the news articles. Bad, I know. But, for the sake of my argument here, let’s say I represent the average Time reader. If they were good marketers, they would do reader polls and interviews and find out this is how I felt. Then, instead of extensive coverage on all that shite, maybe that would include a small snippet each week with some summary of what’s happened this week, why is it important for you to know and what does this mean in the long run. If they could summarize this in 500 words or less, I would read it. Damn, I would seek it out.
And that is what would save print. Present news and information how your readers want it. People pay for that.
