Whap! Whap!

So how is the newspaper industry reacting to its current crisis?

By refusing comment.

Here’s a line from an AP story:

“In fact, the industry group that compiles and releases ad revenue figures, the Newspaper Association of America, this month stopped putting out quarterly press releases with the numbers, though it quietly updated them on its Web site.”

How would the newspaper industry react to such a move by the auto industry, for example? With condemnation. Public’s right to know and all, you know?

Pretty typical hypocrisy from the industry that prides itself on credibility.

Newspaper executives claim that no one saw the current crisis in the industry coming, so taking on enormous amounts of debt to erect buildings, buy presses an gobble up other papers was prudent business back when publishers were doing such things. Back in the good old days. A year or two ago.

Now that this unforeseen crisis has hit, the only solution is to shed journalists as fast as possible. And, of course, to boost CEO pay to retain top talent. The thing is, the CEOs are the problem, and the journalists are the only viable solution.

Let’s be blunt. I told you so, at least those of you who had the misfortune to work with me or attend a seminar with me. For more than 15 years, I’ve been telling anyone who would that this crisis was inevitable. So have many others. Our biggest mistake was thinking the crisis would hit sooner than it did.

The poor, pitiful, blindsided publishers are lying to their staffs, their investors and their creditors. The rise of the internet with its inherent disintermediation has been coming for years. Google, eBay, craigslist and others didn’t just spring up last night.

The writing was on the wall about display advertisers as well. The folks making the buying decisions were geezers who missed the revolution right along with publishers. Those geezers are quickly being replaced by people who have grown up digitally and never had the newspaper habit.

Penetration has been plummeting for years. No, decades. Major advertisers have been consolidating for decades. Research firms have been pimping their seemingly too-good-to-be-true “readership” numbers to placate advertisers for decades, and publishers have been complicit (should we talk about TMC numbers?). The environmental movement has been gaining steam for decades right along with the price of natural resources.

For the past decade, publishers have been fooling investors about the profitability of the print side of the business, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that the web, not print, was all that was keeping classifieds alive.

Today we’re watching Bear Stearns executives being led away in handcuffs for misleading investors. There just might be some newspaper CEOs and CFOs who are squirming a bit watching this spectacle. At the very least, boards should be firing these guys right and left, not increasing their compensation.

But who suffers? Mostly the journalists who get laid off. But also the readers, who have fewer and fewer reasons to pick up the paper every day.

I don’t think the death of newspapers is inevitable.

Unless, of course, the current generation of executives stays in place.

The mainstream media cling desperately to this storyline. Here’s a classic example from newsweek.com.

The author makes a compelling argument that McCain is not a clone of George Bush, and is instead a maverick. How compelling? Let’s look:

• McCain either has long held, or recently has adopted, positions nearly identical to Bush’s on every major issue.
• George Bush governed using a divide-and-conquer strategy developed by Karl Rove (the author forgets to mention that Rove also is advising McCain).
• McCain will have to deal with a Democratic Congress and probably won’t be seeking another term (the author forgets to mention that Bush has been dealing with a Democratic Congress and isn’t seeking another term).

So there you have it, conclusive evidence that McCain is a maverick, not a Bush clone.

I was no ordinary child. I loved newspapers.

My family would go on road trips throughout the country when I was little. From Detroit, we would venture out to Texas, Oregon, Florida, California, Manitoba … and at every stop I would buy a copy of every newspaper available.

I collected hundreds of them, and kept them in my bedroom closet, where I would read them on cold winter nights. It was like reading an adventure. Each paper had a unique look and personality. Some were staid and polished. Some were amateurish but endearing. Some were printed on colored newsprint. Some called famous politicians by only their first names in headlines. Some had folksy local columns at the top of the front page.

Regardless, I loved every one of them. I can’t imagine a child doing that today. With very few exceptions, newspapers everywhere across America are bland, lifeless corporate clones of each other.

So I read the hue and cry about the redesign at the Orlando Sentinel and think “Is this really so bad?”

At first glance, I don’t like the design. It looks like it puts form before function and trivializes the news. Not only that, but it’s being pushed by the buffoons running Tribune. There are plenty of reasons to dislike it.

But I think there is one big reason to like it: It’s different. It might actually catch the eye of someone (let’s say a young person) who otherwise ignores newspapers. If it can deliver on its visual promise and offer a unique view of its community, it might even hold someone’s interest.

Oldtimers won’t like it at first. Oldtimers don’t like any change at first. Some oldtimers might even drop their subscriptions, although the core readership rarely does that. Compare the risk of that against what’s costing papers their readers today - lack of change - and it seems like a gamble worth trying.

There’s a big risk here for the industry. If the redesign fails to attract new readers, and this particular one just might, papers will become even more hesitant to change, if that’s possible.

Of course, there’s another much bigger problem in this redesign. If folks in Orlando actually like the changes, it probably won’t trigger innovation elsewhere.

We’ll start seeing bland, lifeless corporate clones of it popping up all over North America.

With their choice of a new host for “Meet The Press,” NBC execs have an opportunity to change the tone of political reporting and help restore some credibility for the mainstream media.

I know, they won’t, but wouldn’t be nice? Speculation centers on David Gregory, Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough. I have no qualms with Gregory, but Matthews and Scarborough? With either one, we’ll get more softball, wink-wink, nod-nod questions to Republican power brokers and more silly horse-race speculation. Issues, unless you define issues as “Jeremiah Wright,” will lose out again.

So here are some questions we still won’t hear on “Meet The Press” or in newspapers:

• Senators McCain and Obama, what are your strategies for Iraq?
• Senator McCain, what exactly will this great victory you promise in Iraq look like? How will we know when we achieve it?
• Senator McCain, will you make a read-my-lips-style promise of no new preemptive war? Even in Iran?
• Senator McCain, exactly how much do honestly promise to save by reducing earmarks? Please put that amount in perspective to overall federal spending.
• Senator Obama, will you commit to providing health care for every American if the insurance industry continues to deny coverage to millions?
• Senator McCain, do you honestly think buying drugs from Canada and stopping malpractice suits will fix our healthcare system? What’s your Plan B?
• Senator McCain, I see that you’re paying 25 percent interest on your enormous credit-card debt. Insurance companies and potential employers discriminate against people with bad credit, calling it a “character issue.” Does your bad credit constitute a character issue? If not, will you stand up and fight for ordinary Americans who face this stigma?
• Senators McCain and Obama, a question for both of you. What will you do about Guantanemo Bay?
• Another question for both of you. Will you commit, with no conditions, to providing high-quality, no-hassle health care to the thousands of Americans who have been maimed and disabled while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Finally, a question for David Gregory, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and the rest of the press corps: Will you commit to ask these and other substantive questions?

Yeah, didn’t think so. So back to the real issue … should Barack Obama pick someone with a patriotic-sounding name as his running mate? Someone who wears a lapel pin?

I’ve been highly critical of Tim Russert, but his death feels like a punch to the gut. Politics and punditry aside, what a sad day.

Stanley Bing of Fortune writes a scathing entry about people who question the future of newspapers.

He makes several points. Among them:

• People see other industries as dying, but never seem to see anything wrong with their own.
• He and his children enjoy newspapers, so all is well.
• The internet is a medium used to spread rumor, gossip, falsehoods, etc.
• 89 percent of citizen journalists are full of it.

I actually agree with most of his points, but overall he misses the point entirely.

For example, I agree that people tend to over-emphasize the troubles facing other industries while downplaying those facing their own. Unfortunately, newspaper and magazine folks are more guilty of that than most, and Mr. Bing’s column is a prime example. I don’t believe I’ll live to see a day with no newspapers. I think that’s possible, but not likely.

I am, however, certain that I will live to see the day when newspapers in general will be shadows of their former self in terms of size, content and influence. That day is today.

I’m also certain that soon we’ll see far fewer daily papers than exist today. I don’t know what percentage decrease we’ll see. Maybe the 89 percent he throws out in a later point …

He says he and his children still enjoy newspapers. I don’t doubt that, but there are two problems with this point. First, I don’t know anyone who suggests that no one (even no one under the age of 35) likes newspapers. There are lots of people in all age groups who do. But there are many fewer of them than 10 years ago, and the number continues to fall. Second, the challenge isn’t so much getting people to want newspapers; it’s finding a model that makes filling that desire possible. I would love a compact, safe helicopter that runs on water and doesn’t make any noise. Anyone have a business model for meeting my desire?

The internet is a medium used to spread rumors and falsehoods. So is television. So are newspapers. So is talk radio.

Finally, 89 percent of citizen journalists are full of it. Probably true. I think 89 percent of newspaper columnists are full of it, too. I read newspapers for the 11 percent who write informative, compelling stories. I read the internet every day for the 11 percent of citizen journalists who do the same.

So I would add that 89 percent of the people who say that newspapers are dead are 89 percent full of it. Mr. Bing, as evidenced by this column, is 89 percent full of it. I’m 89 percent full of it.

But somewhere in all those remaining 11 percents there’s truth about the bleak future for many papers, and there’s truth about what can be done to make the future brighter for those that survive.

Your editors at The Record of Hackensack are on a witch hunt against liberal bias. They’re watching your every word, which might make you nervous, because “liberal bias“ is such a nebulous phrase.

I’m here to help. In several decades as a newspaper editor, I took hundreds of complaints about liberal bias, and in my current job I hunt them down on forums and in letters to the editor. I think I have some tips for you to avoid some common mistakes:

• Mention Barack Obama’s name only in reference to attacks against him. If you must print rebuttals, identify those making the rebuttals with adjectives such as “Muslim,” “left-wing,” “controversial,” or just plain “liberal.”
• Label any story about science, especially those about evolution, fossils, dinosaurs or global warming, as “theory.” Ideally, also use one or more of the adjectives above to describe the theory. This does not include any reference to science made from the pulpit of a conservative church, which should be reported as fact.
• Make no mention of terms such as “recession,” “lagging consumer confidence,” or “layoffs,” unless you explain that they are caused by consumer fears of an Obama presidency.
• Do not run any story identifying someone as gay unless it involves an indictment, incest, child pornography or overdue library books.
• Insert the phrase “where the John McCain-backed surge is working” after every reference to Iraq.
• Limit pictures of blacks to police mug shots.
• Do the same for pictures of Hispanics, but also list their immigration status.

You’ll make the occasional slip-up, like the one I made a few years ago when I ran an AccuWeather forecast for rain on the Fourth of July. I fielded an angry phone call from a woman who had heard a forecast of no rain on a local television station. This was clearly another example of the paper’s liberal bias because we wanted to discourage people from attending patriotic rallies.

Still, if you follow this advice I am confident you can reduce charges of liberal bias by up to 7 percent. There’s nothing you can do about other obvious signs of liberal bias, such as late papers, circulation rate increases, typos, ink that comes off on readers’ fingers, natural disasters …

And please, don’t let any of this crimp your writing style. Bias against gays, blacks, liberals, Muslims, the United Church of Christ and others is still OK.

In the New York Observer, Iraq war correspondents lament the lack of a narrative for their coverage (http://www.observer.com/baghdad).

What bothers me about the mainstream media coverage of Iraq is not the lack of narrative in the war zone. It’s the lack of coverage of the war in Washington. For example, what is John McCain’s strategy?

This morning on the Today show, McCain put on his best dismissive smirk and praised the glorious progress we’re making. When Matt Lauer lobbed him a softball question about when troops can start coming home, McCain’s smirk got bigger and he said it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter.

All that matters, he said, is that casualties remain low.

What sort of strategy is that? The war can go on forever, as long as casualties remain at a level he’s comfortable with.

Barack Obama’s strategy really isn’t much clearer, but no one presses either of them on this issue.

The narrative is there. The problem is the press, and the politicians, are afraid to tell it.

So Dean Singleton says 40 percent of the top metros in the country are losing money, and that the future of the industry is online.

So Mr. Singleton can’t tell Barack Obama from Osama bin Laden, but he does see the future clearly, right? Not so much. Toward the end of his speech, he says this:

This year, we’ll generate 89% of total revenue from our core, 7% from online and 4% from new products.

On operating cash flow, we currently generate 73% from core, 22% from online and 5% from niche products.

In five years or 2012, we expect 68% of revenue to come from core, 20% from online and 12% from niche.

On operating cash flow, our goal in 2012 is 40% from core, 50% from online and 10% from niche.

What’s wrong with this picture? First, his choice of wording. As long as print is the “core,” it will be treated as the core. Second, print does not generate anywhere near 89 percent of current revenue; that’s due to legacy accounting that attributes classified revenue to print.

Finally, he brags about his heavy investment in the dying core while laying off the people needed for the growing segments of the company.