“What is killing newspapers, as I’ve written before, is…their antiquated distribution system…Dropping newspapers on driveways and putting them in corner boxes is cumbersome, compared with internet distribution.” – Shel Israel

Not to mention theft-prone:

“I didn’t want to cancel the paper because that would mean a complete surrender to the Internet and admittance of the fact that a printed newspaper is no longer necessary.” – Dmitry Kiper

“That I still receive the print edition of the WSJ is a farce — when I called to renew my subscription, I was told that it was actually cheaper to get both the print and online editions than the online edition alone — and then I suddenly started receiving the print edition at home as well! That kind of blind subsidization can’t last.” – Scott Karp

NickelNuts pointed me to an article by media lawyer, Steven P. Aggergaard article via instant messaging, I read it in my web browser, and then posted this to a weblog.

Aggergaard is arguing we need to keep paper in newspaper – because that equals journalism and full-time jobs. Despite all the costs and overhead he lists out. In addition, the quality of information delivered online for free (versus $0.50 for a daily paper – Huh?) is some how not as valuable.

Minneapolis and St. Paul have a huge need for a hyper-local citizen (not consumer) journalism form. Something closer to what the smaller papers (St. Anthony Bulletin, Northeaster, Downtown Journal) are doing – but without the paper.

NickelNuts and I have talked about this, and in fact, yesterday over lunch I blurted out: “What would it take to make this happen?”

One website – or news paper – or television channel – or radio station – does not a well informed citizen make. But, what about 350 blogs written by your neighbors?

LATER:
Dave has some great comments. I’m less concerned about an overarching editorial voice, and more interested in relevance delivered for and by local voices.

ELSEWHERE:
A great point and a wonderful tie back to Aggergaard’s original post.

“…readers don’t care. They just want the most complete, accurate and engaging coverage possible. They don’t how we make the sausage, or even who makes it. They just want to eat.” – Robert Niles

EVEN LATER
Aggergaard responds and corrects in the comments. I follow-up.

Earlier this year – for about 3 months – McClatchy owned both the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Now…they own neither. After selling the PP to MediaNewsGroup in August, the Strib is now owned by a holding company with stakes in the Weekly Reader, yearbook publisher Jostens, and real estate marketing materials publisher Merrill Corp.

Here’s the reaction from the pundits:
Snarky Garrick: “Now there is in fact, no difference between the Weekly Reader and the Star Tribune.”

Intrigued Garrick: “Broadsheet newspapers are now considered a specialty publication, like yearbooks and home-for-sale brochures. Huh. Looks like Avista doesn’t have a lot of holdings in internet technology. Why’d they buy more printing presses?”

Media Mogul Garrick: “The separation between news and paper is nearly complete. Avista just needs to divest themselves of the writing staff.”

Thanks to Matt @ MNPublius.com for the tip.

Elsewhere:

“But half the price of the original purchase? And no interest from other newspaper companies? Those are signs of deepening malaise, or worse, in the newspaper business.” – Dan Gillmor

“…if Avista behaves like most private equity investors, they’ll come in to the Star Tribune with their knives sharpened, ready to slash costs. That could mean cutting staff in the newsroom…” – John Morton in MPR’s report on the sale.

“…a newspaper blog, for example, has higher standards to maintain than a teenager’s rant blog…” – Mark Gisleson

While I expect a higher standard of reporting from anything run through a printing press and sent over the FM dial (between 88.3 and 91.1) it’s a rare occasion the higher standard is delivered.

In fact, I’m pretty sure, these publishers are actually structured to deliver a lower standard than the random teenager’s MySpace page; supported by big ad dollars, needing to support expensive infrastructure (equipment, full-time staff, benefits), writing at or below a 4th-grade level, artificially restricted newshole, etc.

This weekend, paging through the Sunday paper, I gave some thought to how I might change newspapers;

• Day 1: End all print publications.
• Day 2: Install a multi-blog network engine for all staff and community leaders.
• Day 3: Schedule free journalism courses in every neighborhood.
• Day 4: Use staff to curate and develop the larger stories – tying neighborhood reports together. With lots and lots of links, pictures, audio, and video.

ELSEWHERE:

“I look forward to the day when Time and other traditional magazines fully embrace us when it comes to the journalism.” – Dan Gillmor

“….Time is, separating themselves where there is no separation.” – Dave Winer

“So if Time were doing its job properly, it would highlight a million people of the year. But, of course, it can’t. The form doesn’t allow it. And the form is what led to massthink. But mass is over.” – Jeff Jarvis

“At its best news informs and enlightens the citizens of a free society and thereby safeguards and strengthens our democracy. At its worst–dishonest, unfair, irresponsible–the media has potential to erode the public trust on which its own success depends and to corrode the democratic system of which it is so indispensably a part. So, let me touch on 10 current trends in the mass media that ought to disturb us.” – Peter R. Kann

Mr. Kann’s 10 trends are dead on – though, I think they are all different shades of his first:
“The blurring of the lines between journalism and entertainment”.

Back in October, Doc Searls listed his 10 ways to improve newspapers. I suspect unconsciously percolated in my head for 2 months.