BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Britain’s (latest) press revolution

6 comments on Britain’s (latest) press revolution

Britain’s (latest) press revolution
: With its hyperbolimeter turned up high, the Guardian says this is the most momentous time in British news since the Wapping revolution.

The ecology of British newspapers is changing before our eyes because of two unconnected events: the successful launch of the tabloid Independent and the financial crisis enveloping the owner of the Telegraph group, Lord (Conrad) Black.

Note first the paradoxes. The Independent is the newest of papers and the lowest-selling; the Telegraph is one of the oldest and the largest-selling. The former, a left-of-centre paper, has turned around its fortunes by daring to innovate; the latter, a conservative organ, has watched its audience die off and done too little to attract replacements. Both have fallen foul of the same enemy: Rupert Murdoch. Ever since the owner of the Times launched his price war in 1993 he has gradually squeezed the breath out of the two papers, denuding them of readers and threatening their ability to make profits.

Big paper/little paper. Profitable/troubled. Those aren’t revolutions; they aren’t even momentous; they’re life. Momentous is what would happen if the BBC lost its licensing fee. Momentous is what’s happening online. Momentous is a huge shift of audience from one medium to another.

Still, this is interesting stuff. Would a high-brow tabloid work in the U.S. (it would be a better user interface, eh?).

6 responses to “Britain’s (latest) press revolution”

  1. Mike G Avatar
    Mike G

    Even though I’m not crazy about the British papers, or the London lit scene, you have to admit there is something lively about it, with the highbrow papers fighting it out and lots of famous names jockeying for the chance to either be unexpectedly thoughtful (Julie Burchill) or an unexpected wanker (Julian “I’m Only Against Islamoterrorism When It Affects A Colleague I Know Personally” Barnes). The closest we come to that is the opinion weeklies (New Republic, Weekly Standard, etc.), and maybe the WSJ where you’ll actually find a Bernard Lewis on the editorial page, and not just a Tom Friedman talking about what Bernard Lewis says; but the newspapers, even the NYT, are all just a little too dumbed down for the mass market.

  2. hugh macleod Avatar
    hugh macleod

    Agreed, Mike. Which is why nobody cares in the US what paper you read (with maybe the exception of the WSJ), and why in the UK they do.
    If other people “care” what brand you use, then your brand is more valuable. End of story.

  3. button Avatar
    button

    First, the subject of publication size is a big category here in the US which you really need a specialist to discuss with you, maybe tom mangen would know something about it. Periodically, they adjust the sizes of the publications, the last time they did it for postal purposes. It used to be because of something about the physical press equipment. The last time the adjustments were made, I believe Vogue Mag was shrunk down a little.
    Off-beat sizes: The Village Voice is not standard tabloid material. The character of its contents have varied over the years. Then, there is the NY Review of Books. As I recall, I don’t have a recent copy handy, it was not exactly a standard size either. It is not standard broadsheet size, but not exactly tabloid either. The revival NY Herald Trib was broadsheet size, but after financial failure, it was sold and became New York Magazine adjusted down to quasi-tabloid, you might say, but not standard tabloid material.
    I think there is room for a quality publication, probably weekly, probably The Guardian on newsprint, in tabloid or non-standard size. Or it could try to do something similar to the NY Observer which is broadsheet size, but I don’t see why that is necessary anymore. Maybe tabloid is not exactly right. Maybe there is a need now for something in between. Neo-tabloid would be somewhat bigger than regular tabloid, but not as big as broadsheet. These thing have to be discussed with experts because you can’t do anything you want at random, depending on equipment and capacities and other people. You as one publisher cannot just decide to do things your way eccentrically before you check out the feasibility of it with the rest of the industry you’d have to work with.
    Daily? No, I don’t think so. The last time they tried that was the revival NY Herald Tribune. New Yorkers seem to be in too much of a rush or hurry to sit down with a quality, literate newpaper on a daily basis. They are lucky, too, because they have a TV channel just for them! The rest of us don’t really have that. They can GRAB the headlines off NY One, their channel, stuff a muffin in their mouth and eject themselves out of their doorway onto the subway and then pick up a coffee before entering their company. They are probably too pressed for time to pause for the perspective of a ‘quality’ publication on a daily basis.

  4. KMK Avatar
    KMK

    My 2 cents and a chuckle. I see media venturing into the TIVO way of life. We pick they provide. I don’t think print will ever become irrelevant because the president of our tech company still has his emails printed out for him everyday and I think many others will maintain that dinosaur thinking. Will it matter if they publish tabloid or broadsheet? Only if they play into the ADD/sesame street culture mentality. Highbrow tabloid sounds trendy and nothing more. Online readership should be a clear indication people want more.
    I can’t remember who sent this to me but it made me laugh.
    1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
    2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
    3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crosswords.
    4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don’t really understand the Washington Post. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.
    5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn’t mind running the country, if they could spare the time, and if they didn’t have to leave LA to do it.
    6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and they did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.
    7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren’t too sure who’s running the country, and don’t really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
    8. The New York Post is read by people who don’t care who’s running the country, as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
    9. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who saw a real newspaper once and found it too hard to read because there was way too much type and it was too small, and who wants to spend more than 15 minutes reading a whole newspaper anyway?
    10. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country but need the baseball scores.
    11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.

  5. Mike G Avatar
    Mike G

    By the way, Hugh– speaking of connections made via blogs– I knew you slightly at Leo Burnett. Weird, huh.

  6. Jim Hacker Avatar
    Jim Hacker

    The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country.
    The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country.
    The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country.
    The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
    The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country.
    The Morning Star is read by people who think the country should be run by another country, and the Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
    Readers of the Sun don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits!!