Newspapers are dying because they continue to produce papers, but are reducing the extent to which they produce news, and continue to produce news that is only fair and relevant to those still buying paper. A recent article demonstrates the first half of this statement. According to the New York Times, which has problems of its own, “The Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s largest newspaper, will cut its newsroom staff about 40 percent by year’s end, one of the largest reductions in a single move by a major American paper.” According to this source, however, the newsroom staff only accounted for 330 of 750 non-union jobs with the paper. Presumably there are at least that many unionized workers printing and distributing the papers in addition, so workers producing “news” are a small and shrinking share of the staff. In contrast at the research company I work for, one that publishes by subscription on the internet, those producing information account for well more than half of those employed. Clearly no one informed The Star Ledger that the most recent industry classification system moved the newspaper industry out of “manufacturing” and into “information.” Some newspapers have devolved into nothing more than distribution channels for the Associated Press, while others are considering dropping the AP to save money. Those still trying are losing more and more money.

The information market is being divided into those who use the internet and those who don’t read. My wife and I still subscribe to some dead trees, as it is hard to read off a desktop computer in bed or at the kitchen table, but younger folks have already moved to laptops and have no such issues. Absent the need to produce and distribute a physical newspaper, subscriptions ought to be fairly inexpensive, reflecting the cost of the information alone. Hard copies are now a luxury product, unless one does the printing oneself, or picks of a stripped down newspaper for free.

In addition to those producing news accounting for a small and shrinking share of those now working, one wonders if those now working for the newspapers are majority of the cost. It may be that the existing newspaper companies are burdened by the debts run up by executives seeking bonuses or cashing in on leveraged loan buyouts, and the rich pensions handed to unions that subsequently agreed to lower pay and benefits for future hires. Replicating the debt-financed tax breaks and public employee pension deals that have wrecked the future of public services, in other words. After all the same generations, with (mostly) the same values, are in charge of just about everything.

Now I don’t claim that information and entertainment organizations don’t have other problems, not the least of which is the difficulty in getting people, particularly younger people, to pay for their service rather that merely take it for free. Perhaps, however, younger people, who are getting robbed repeatedly by public policies that work against them, would be willing to pay a modest subscription for a publication that was on their side. Many of the existing news organizations built their readership as crusading advocates for social fairness of once sort or another. And one sort of social unfairness that continues to grow unchecked is younger generations, worse off financially in the private sector, also being made worse off financially, over and over, in public policy.

Why won’t the mainstream media confront the issues I raised in this post as a matter of overall principle, and see each issue from the perspective of whether generational inequities are being expanded or reduced? Why not tell those starting out what they need to know to ensure their future in the world they will inherit, in part through their own decisions, in part be fighting back collectively? Why not evaluate, in every case, if institutions -- business, government, non-profit -- are being built up for long term benefit or exploited for short-term gain?

Perhaps because those producing the remaining profits, older generations still receiving newspapers by subscription and watching the evening news, might be turned off by a recounting of the effect of repeated decisions to secure a better deal for themselves has affected their own children. That being the case, it is fair and reasonable that today’s newspapers will die with those generations. The MSM can take comfort in the fact that the way things are going, younger generations aren’t going to be able to afford their services anyway.

In that case, however, I shudder to think about the information they will receive. Take a web-based organization I see advertised all the time, WebMD. Just search there, and for free WebMD will provide information about your health problems and what to do about them. And where does WebMD get its money? “WebMD Health Corp. (Nasdaq: WBMD), the leading provider of health information services, stated that it has experienced a strong increase in sales of its online promotional and educational programs in both the pharmaceutical and consumer products markets during the September 2008 quarter,” according to its website. That information is about as suspect as information on housing and transportation produced by a publication that receives a large share of its revenues from automobile and real estate ads. Or a publication that includes articles driven by press releases from the PR staff of politicians and interest groups.

Yes all the newspapers are trying to move onto the internet. I read them there for free, but I feel no obligation to pay until I see the things I know to be true described there, consistently, and statements from others I know to be at variance with those truths either ignored or at least challenged. I’ve noted repeatedly that the real deception, in business, in government, and in the media, isn’t the untruth of what is said. It is in the truth of the unsaid. What is the unsaid? Who doesn’t want to hear it? Who needs to hear it? Who needs to hear it now, with the press of debt and pension obligations and an economic crisis in our successfully and profitably bankrupted country, city and state leading to talk of severe reductions in public services and benefits and increases in taxes – after the election?

Is it ongoing references to casual sex, bathroom functions, and profanity what those under 35 need to hear? That sounds about 35 years out of date to me. But that’s what you find on some of the blogs in New York. Just something else someone is trying to sell. My kids aren’t that stupid.

By occupying space, the newspapers help keep the unsaid, unsaid. Imagine if a mid-sized city lost its one and only newspaper. Chances are an online one would spring up for those who wanted local news – without the past debts and retiree obligations, without the overhead, without the physical paper – but perhaps with photographic, sound and video information as well as written information. The reporters and editors would, perhaps, have to work out of their home offices and their cars to save money. But if enough people were willing to pay for such an information network, at perhaps half the cost of a newspaper subscription today, they might be able to earn a living. And deserve one.

Until then, if you want to say the unsaid, you’ll have to do it for free. Otherwise, you’ll have to report the press release from the interest group about what New York’s comparable tax and spending priorities are, how its public employment and pay compare with other places, the value received for that money, and regulatory policies. Or issue their study.

As it is the newspapers are like the auto industry with its legacy costs, political influence and SUVs, who will get subsidized even as start-up Telsa goes under. Held down by their past successes -- and the prejudices, interests and rationalizations of their customers. Just keep reporting what those who matter say, and tell the rest they are lucky it isn’t worse for them.

Until newspapers go the way of the dodo-bird, it will be difficult for paid on-line sources to compete with the newspaper incumbents, unless they are little more than a series of links to information produced by those incumbents. That’s what most independent web-based sources are, for now. But that paper information, incomplete as it is, is going away, and those in the information business need to start imagining alternatives. After all, younger generations are going to have to learn to live cheap while working even harder, to pay back what was enjoyed by others. They can’t afford the paper. Perhaps they can afford the information. But the newspapers, dependent on the advertisers, have to think twice before even providing information about how to live cheap.