Over the weekend the big topic of conversation appears to have been the death or survival of traditional print journalism… specifically, newspapers.  With more and more people coming online to get their news, and more than a couple of newspapers struggling to make ends meet, some in the blogosphere and beyond are saying that it's time print media just give in to the digitization of their field.

My fellow Internet Marketing Monitor writer Mandy comes to us from the print media industry.  She's been a journalist for and edited newspapers for years.  Her degrees are in journalism and communication.  So who better to ask about the subject, right?

Well… what started as a simple question quickly turned into an online debate of sorts.  We emailed back and forth for quite a while and, I think, both raised some interesting points.  So I'm publishing the text of that debate here.

Read on to see the back and forth… and maybe weigh in with your commentary.

Derick:  Hey Mandy.  So what do you think about all of this weekend chatter about the death of print journalism?  I know that's your field and your background so I figure you'll have something to say about it.  I, for one, don't see any fate for print journalism other than eventual death.  Everything is going digital these days so it only makes sense that newspapers will eventually do the same thing. What do you think? - Derick

Mandy:    Well, I agree that newspapers need to - and are - adding digital features to *supplement *the content presented in print editions. But I say that if the San Francisco Chronicle and other large newspapers are in trouble, it's a sign of poor planning and practices on an individual newspaper basis, and not within the print journalism industry as a whole. Most reputable newspapers offer their content online for those who prefer to get their news on the Internet, and with those sites have the option of providing more "tech-savvy" features like blogs, videos, message boards, and other interactive content. Individual publishers just need to find the best ways to capitalize on those features, while still providing the print editions for their base of print subscribers. There are huge numbers of people who will continue to prefer the feeling of the pages turning in their hands with their cup of coffee every morning.

I think a metamorphosis in presentation is the fate for print journalism … not "eventual death."

Derick:   But if I can get my news from a place like Google News - which syndicates thousands of news sources - for free, why would I ever want to pay money to get just once source of news?

Mandy:   Well, for one thing, a lot of those syndicated news stories that you are getting your news through Google News are stories generated by field reporters working for a print publication. And that's one thing that is grossly lacking in the blogging world - successful bloggers can write well, and most of them are knowledgeable in their specific fields of inquiry. But journalists are specifically trained to do research, use specific, time-tested methods of interviewing, and write in a specific style to provide the most reliable, unbiased content on any given event or subject. (There are flaws in the system, as with any industry, granted … but for the most part, these are people who are educated and trained solely on how to get and write news through ethical means). I don't think your average blogger, no matter how popular or skilled at what they do, can present an experience in the same way as a trained reporter who, say, trudged through rain and mud in high heels to get the story and ask the right questions.

And, c'mon, Derick … it's only 50 cents for your newspaper. Don't be so cheap!

Derick:   Ok.  But that still doesn't answer my question.  Why should I pay for a PRINT newspaper when I can get the same information online.  I don't care how much it costs.  Free is free and 50 cents isn't.  Are newspapers not shooting themselves in the foot by publishing the news online?  Aren't they cannibalizing their own readers by letting me find their content through Google News?

And I'll never be able to add my two-cents to a newspaper article in print format.  But I can leave comments on and interact with a website.  Those interactive mediums are some of the biggest drivers of Internet usage these days.  You can't tell me that someone who gets a taste of reading their favorite publication online, with the interactive features and community feel, will ever look at their boring old newspaper the same way again.

Price aside, why should I read through the marriage announcements and city council minutes in print form when I can get all of that in the online version?  The newspapers are between a rock and a hard place:  they need to take advantage of the Internet.  But folks aren't used to paying for information online.  Some newspapers have been successful at paid online versions, but these are usually big, national papers.  Is the Smalltown Press going to be able to make a living selling their paper online?  No.  They won't.

Mandy:   First of all, you absolutely CAN add your two-cents (though in your case, it would probably be four!) to an article in print format. Letters to the editor and guest columns are long-standing traditions of print newspapers, and Op/Ed pages are some of the most compelling in any newspaper for that reason. Controversial stories in the local papers frequently generate weeks worth of back-and-forth letters from readers - and newspapers know that those types of engagements will keep readers running out the door every morning to open up that paper and check to see what's being said today about the topic at hand. And sure, readers can leave comments and the link online as well, but seeing your username on a computer screen and seeing your name in print are two very, very different experiences. People don't generally print out pages featuring their online comments, but you can rest assured that most folks will clip out their published letter to share with family and friends.

Is it suicide for the newspaper? Absolutely not. Newspapers don't make money through subscriptions. They make it through advertising. And smart newspapers will offer their advertisers package rates for both print and online advertising to capitalize on both mediums. Their ad sheets will showcase just how many print subscribers they have, as well as how much traffic they have to their Website. If I'm an advertiser, and I know I can buy a print ad to a newspaper with a circulation of 70,000 for $400, or I can get that print ad in addition to an ad on a Website with daily traffic of an additional 50,000 site visitors for at total of $550, I would definitely buy the second one. It's two birds with one stone for the newspaper with minimal effort. If they embrace changing technology and make it a part of how their companies run, newspapers can online grow and thrive. If they fight it or fail to capitalize on it, then yes, those individual newspapers are fighting a losing battle.

Derick:   Sure… I could write a letter to the editor of the Springfield News-Leader and wait a day, or two, or seven… hoping and praying that they picked me to publish.  Or I could leave my opinion attached to the article in question at a website and see it instantly.  And I could go back and forth with people in near-real time on a website.  It's not unheard of to have stories pulled out of the comments and made front and center.  And if I really want to see my name in lights with an actual letter to the editor I could do it instantly by email from the website.  I can get both from an online version.  The print version is irrelevant.

How many people do you know that have Internet access… but no newspaper subscription?  A lot.  If newspapers would focus their efforts online they'd have a potentially larger subscriber base to pitch at advertisers (who, by the way, love spending money online).  Everything that you've said here can be accomplished more easily, for less money, and much more quickly online:

*  Advertisers can drop their ads directly into the system and see them appear within minutes (as opposed to days).
*  Subscribers can get that healthy debate going instantly and in real-time through comments
*  Readers can use trackbacks from blogs and other news sources to continuing reading about their favorite topics… which adds a useful feature and keeps people coming back
*  A well-written, well marketed, and well-optimized online newspaper can get MILLIONS of visitors if it wanted to.  Go find me a bunch of newspapers with that kind of circulation
*  The exact same kind of journalism that leads to printed news can be used to create digital news… it's exactly the same
*  Newspapers can build communities around their product online in ways that aren't remotely possible with printed versions (regular commenters, citizen journalists, etc)
*  Newspapers can be much more "breaking" online than in printed versions.  They could compete with television, radio, and other online forms of journalism in "breaking the news" and "getting the scoop"

Mandy:   And I agree with everything that you've mentioned here. Major newspapers can't survive in today's market solely with their print edition (small-town newspapers will be just fine without online editions, and I don't think that will change). I also don't think those newspapers could survive with digital editions solely. I can go back and read the archives of any story printed online and get the meat of the article. But the impact that print layout and design has on those stories is immeasurable.

Take the terrorist attacks of September 11. I can go back and read all the stories I want about how the events of that day transpired. I can watch videos of planes crashing into the World Trade Center, and I see pictures of the aftermath in New York, Washington DC, and Philadelphia. But those features as stand-alone resources don't capture what they day was like with quite the same impact as the combination of photos, quotes, news coverage, and layout that the newspapers of September 12, 2001 did. And those archives will always exist, and will always allow us to go back into past decades and centuries to get a much more complete feel for major historical events in ways that online news and blogging can't yet do.

All of those online features you mentioned are important to the survival of traditional print newspapers, but the features of the print editions are equally as important to the success of the digital format. Newspapers are definitely not on their death bed … they may need to spend a little time in the beds of plastic surgeons to change with the times, but our great-great grandchildren will still be reading the New York Times and the Springfield News-Leader at their breakfast tables in the eras to come.

Derick:   Well I think we've both hit on some major aspects of this debate.  And I think time will be sole factor to determine which of us is right (if either of us are).  After clicking that link you provided to the Sept 12 newspapers I can see what you mean about the impact of the printed papers.  So I'll give you that.  I guess maybe the best approach is one that combines a little of both of what we've said.

By the way… do you mind if I share this conversation on the website?  I think others might like reading (and maybe joining) our little debate here.

Mandy:   Oh, I never have a problem with publicly lambasting your arguments. (Just kidding. That was a joke!). Of course I don't mind.

And thanks for the little debate!

Thanks for adding your valuable insight, Mandy!  I knew you'd be able to throw those years in the field around and give me a run for my money.  But I wouldn't go as far as to say "lambasting".  Haha.

So what do you think?  What's your take on print vs digital journalism?