sWashington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein did a online chat yesterday on WashintonPost.com and shared this comment:
But to date, we cling to these outdated notions that every city of 25,000 people needs its own daily newspaper. Not only can't those papers be very good at delivering a full range of local, national and international news and features, but their existence makes it difficult for even the big metro papers to have enough circulation (scale) to do that. Unfortunately, consolidation takes a long time, especially when so many papers remain in family ownership.
It seems like he is suggesting that the little guys step out of the way so that large newspapers can continue to exist in their current form. He seems to have missed some recent concepts like, "Its local stupid" and "Do what you do best and link to the rest."
The idea that every news organization has a need to report on "national and international news and features" is ridiculous. Many community newspapers in this country understand that their bread and butter is local news. This is content that the nearby large metro can't and doesn't want to provide. Where I currently work is 60 miles from a city with a large paper. They make no effort to cover this community except for rare occurrences.
It is easy to sit at The Washington Post, a paper known for national and international coverage and feel like this is a necessity for a newspaper. That is flawed logic though. The number of outlets to the average person for this type of news is astounding. Between the cable news channels devoted to this and the Internet, one can find the news they are looking for rather easily.
Now, to address his comment that, "their existence makes it difficult for even the big metro papers to have enough circulation." Is it really the responsibility of one business to look out for the long-term concerns of a competitor. A comparison would be to ask a locally owned pizza place to close shop because the Domino's Pizza down the road isn't getting enough deliveries.