Every day lately you read about newspapers in trouble or being shut down. The old model of news + ads + printing + delivery simply doesn't work in the current webified world. Many existing newspaper companies are trying to be on the web with limited (financial) success while they continue to live in the old world as well.
It's not going to work.
So what should a web newspaper be like?
Let's go back to what a newspaper is for. I the reader want to know what is happening around me, around the region, around the nation, around the world. I don't have time or expertise or contacts to do it myself. I want to know if Mayor Quimby is spending my tax dollar on hookers, what the politicians are doing to my wallet, how my local teams are faring and how the world is screwing up again. Somewhere someone has to dig into these stories, get the facts, write them up and get paid for the work. Then whatever of this information I am interested in needs to get to me.
That in a nutshell is what I want. I don't want to see ads unless its something I am interested in. I don't want to go to 100 different sites to read the articles. I don't want to see things I am not interested in until I become so. I want to get news and information from specific places or categories or keywords and change them whenever it suits me. I want my news my way and entirely in one place.
I'm willing to pay 25¢ per day for this.
That doesn't sound like enough money to support a bloated newspaper company with printers and ink and trucks and delivery people and ad salesmen and massive infrastructure. It's isn't and it shouldn't be.
First forget print and delivery. Second forget everything but reporting and media and editorial. Third forget redundancy and overlap. Fourth forget web access. Finally forget ads unless they are content.
This is the model for what a "newspaper" system should be. 
The top layer organization can be local, city, state, regional, national, specialized, whatever. They gather news and generate content. They range in size from the neighborhood gossiper to international in scope. All they have is reporters and media (photography etc) and editors, computers and maybe some vehicles. They create this content at whatever pace makes sense. There are no deadlines. When it's done it's ships. But where to?
Thats what an aggregator is for. The industry defines a standard content format (XML or whatever) for content, media and meta-data. Everyone makes all content (note all content not headlines and snippets) available to the aggregator on a continuous basis (when it's ready). The aggregator saves everything, indexes everything, and keeps track of everything, and manages whatever the payment arrangement is (page views whatever).
So how do I read all this? That's what a displayer is for (note this can be the same company as the aggregator but doesn't have to, just define a standard API). The displayer provides a new ajax web interface for me to read. It provides complete controls for me to determine what I want to see. I am in control of everything I see. There are no ads unless they are content (such as local Craigslist ads for lawnmowers in my zip). I see a nicely organized set of synopsis's of articles available 
with controls and filters.
When I want to see a whole article it expands in the same space 
. Then when I am done it closes up and the page adjusts. I can change the layout and filters at any time. I can save preset views at any time (National, Baseball, Mongolian Sheep Herders, whatever).
I'm willing to pay 25¢ per day for this. Not enough you say?
With 400,000 subscribers to this "newspaper" paying 25¢ per day that comes to $36,500,000 per year. Remember that covers no printing, no deliverly, basically nothing but paying news reporting outfits, servers and bandwidth. Instead of 10,000 newspapers all over the country (much less the world) you have 10,000 news reporting outfits who have little to do but gather news and collect payments. How the payment system is defined of course is important and probably should be based on some formula like # readers or other measurable criteria.
Of course this means that traditional newspaper companys and media conglomerates go away. You can't have thousands of aggregators or it defeats the purpose. You could have more viewers to allow for different user experiences but the aggregator is really a utility, a proverbial series of tubes.
This whole scenario is exactly what I want. Will I ever see it? Probably not. Existing media companies want to hold on to their content, their image, their brands, their printing plants, all the way to complete ruin. It would take some money, but more importantly some real balls to convince the media companies to downsize and agree on a common delivery format and payment system that works for everyone from Global News Monsters to the local gossiper.
If I had money (I don't) and time (not without money) I'd find this a fascinating thing to work on. The biggest need is the might to roll the whole industry up, which clearly one person not named Steve Jobs simply doesn't have.
If this does happen as a Phoenix out of the ashes of the newspaper industry I am ready with my quarter.
I am not holding my breath.
Rick O 02/27/2009 10:11
For many of us, this is how we've gotten our news for years now. I've been using RSS feeds for going on a decade, and had a custom news-scraping spider before that. The details of the reading experience may not be the same (though what you specify sounds like FeedDemon) but the underlying structure is almost exactly that.
"You can't have thousands of aggregators or it defeats the purpose."
Out of the entire post, which was excellent, this was my one sticking point. I have tons of feeds in my reader, and many of them are aggregator feeds. Slashdot, Ars Technica, io9, EcoGeek, the Sunshine Foundation, memestreams, etc, etc. The beauty of having thousands of aggregators is that I can choose exactly which ones I think suit my interests the best. Yeah, in theory you could train a computer to do that ... but I still like having a human in the loop. And yeah, I'd pay for that, as there is definitely a value-add there.
Or maybe your definition of "aggregator" is closer to what the AP does. For that, sure, I can't see how there would be too many of those. In that case, insert a step between that and the reader, call it "news collator" or something, and have your diversity there.
codist 02/27/2009 10:38
It's possible to put something together for yourself, but many news sources do not include all content in their feeds, especially your local newspaper. Working with links and snippets isn't the same.
I also read a lot of stuff in RSS format from the tech world, but it's still very hit and miss for general news.
Blad_Rnr 02/27/2009 13:35
Excellent commentary. But just like illegal downloads and the RIAA, the people who run newspapers just don't understand the Internet age and computers in general. The digital divide between people 40 and older is vast, and I'm 44, but work in IT so I get it. Look what Jobs had to do to get a music store online so he could sell other people's music. Then they waffled because they weren't getting the same profits they were in the golden CD years. They still don't understand that change happens when you lose control to technology. It will take a maverick to step into the newspaper realm and make it happen as you described. Jobs could do it, maybe Bezos by opening up the Kindle to such a service.
You are spot on, though. I just don't think anyone running a newspaper these days "gets it."
SJones 02/27/2009 16:48
I like your grounds-up rethinking of the newspaper value: Delivery is dead but news gather is still valuable.
But, your self-service aggregation of feeds leaves out a bunch of essential newspaper services: Shared community forum, editorial filtering and authoritative reputation.
I believe someone will figure out how to transplant those values to your Newspaper-For-One idea. Your statement that "You can't have thousands of aggregators or it defeats the purpose." sort of hints that this is true.
Yesterday I read an idea about the possible future of news (I'll cite the source when I get a chance): Every newspaper will aggregate everyone else (like blogs, today). However, each news organization will focus its news gathering on what it knows best and has authority (Washington Post - Politics, New York Times - National News, etc.). You'll choose news outlets for two things: The focus of their own content and their editorial filtering of everyone else's.
bmovie 02/27/2009 21:25
How can you write "I don't want to see ads unless its something I am interested in." It is advertising that has kept the newspapers in business all these years and it's how you may be paying 20 cents instead of 25 cents for your new newspaper.
I hate "pop ups" like everyone else, but how will we know when there's a sale on toilet paper or Chateau Grande Sauterelle. You put on blinders to only advertising you want and all you will know is macaroni and cheese and this Economic Recession goes on forever. You make advertising the "Big Evil Bad Guy" and you put millions out of work who can't afford your 25 cent newspaper. And what are you going to do about the pressmen and their families that now print the newspapers?
Do you know how to get a non-bloated newspaper with only ads you want to see now for less that 25 cents? Go through a trash barrel at the end of the day with a pencil and a pair of scissors.
Yacko 02/28/2009 14:34
Ah, where to begin kicking this dead donkey? Yes newspapers are a dying business, but they have done very little to claw their way out of the whirlpool. Did you see that Hearst is thinking about a wireless e-reader? Yeah, that's a venture that will work. Like there isn't enough reader/pda/phone/netbook devices in the world and reader software to go with them. Sure, we will bow to Citizen Hearst and the new device and get many redundant newspaper subscriptions to please them. What is this about? Content protection. When they were paper, they could care less. Alright my story. I was a good little subscriber to the Providence Journal for like 12 years and off and on (mostly towards the end of course) I would be missing a paper, couple of days in a row, maybe a Sunday. Could they be bothered to figure out why the paper was missing? Was it theft from an open porch or was it their rotating cast of delivery people, most seemingly lasting less than a month or two on the route. Nope, I had to pipe up, place a call, and they would be happy to send some putz to hand deliver a newspaper. This seemed to them to be the lowest cost solution, though apparently they weren't factoring my time and aggravation. Real simple, it reached a point of no return and I canceled. Could the Providence Journal company bother to ask me why I quit? Could they bother asking me for observations and suggestions? Could they even bother asking me what I expected out of a newspaper? Here they were, delivering about a pound a day of paper, ineptly, 96% of which I did not even look at. Where is the efficiency in this? Did they ever ask me what were the top 10 or so important things in the paper that I read, whether they could deliver them electronically somehow, and whether they could do so for at least half what they were getting for the newsprint. All I needed was local news, foreclosure notices, the house sale database they were tied into, editorial content and maybe a couple of other things, but they have to send some guy moping his way through a days job, in order to drop 60 pages of content on my stoop. Alright, I don't have a visionary solution that will save the newspaper industry, but you would think they could do something cheap, simple and easy that might get them through the next 10 years while they put together a better plan. What is wrong with a pdf? I'm sure the pressroom can output a pdf. Nothing revolutionary about it. Just email me maybe 3MB a day of categories of stuff I asked for, maybe a page of serendipty and a couple of targeted ads for 25cents a day. No RSS, no website, no flash, no animation. They can't even manage something as easy as that and all I can say is good riddance to the industry.
bmovie 02/28/2009 20:40
Awww. Poor baby.
You want a simple email of the news, — go online. Google news is free, The New York Times is free, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, The Christian Science Monitor, the Vatican is on line: the National Enquirer is online.
Damn! You guys are all such whiners! You can get the paper for free if you drag your arses down to Starbucks or the Library. You can even read brand new books at Barnes and Nobles; break to go to the John and God knows how many people wash their hands after, and continue reading. Hungry or need coffee? Go have a break and go back to reading your book or magazine—smear your jelly donut all over the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue and Hustler before I even get there.
You all want to bury newspapers, and mess up your eyesight reading in front of the monitor. Wait until they tell you radiation from a computer monitor causes Cancer and impotency!
Ever try picking up dog poop with a laptop or clean paintbrushes with a Kindle? How are the homeless supposed to keep warm in the winter?
Spike 02/28/2009 23:50
Well, you have very good ideas and they will be viable in about 3-4 years or so when traditional media companies will realise that their business model doesn't stand up anymore
Yacko 03/01/2009 01:02
"bmovie 02/28/2009 20:40 Awww. Poor baby. * Nobody cared about why you didn't re-subscribe."
But that's the point. I am not whining. I've got plenty of news to read. I am not complaining I have no news resources. I am simply pointing out that a flailing industry seems unable to forensically autopsy the reasons for their failure and apply that knowledge. I pointed out they could simply take a relatively low tech short term approach and sell pdfs. In fact the Prov Journal now has downloads of the front page at 170KB or so. They could sell me and probably others a 10 page individually targeted paper that would deviate very little from their current news and press room procedures. Essentially no extra producer costs for them. This is about greed and hitting a profit home run. They want that active web page, they want a cookie trail to read and they want the retarded notion of page hits, like those moronic multi-page web articles that are a pain in the ass to read. The Hearst ereader is similar home run thinking because they are hoping to be wildly successful and either onerously partner with other periodicals for distribution or have them beg to be sold outright to Hearst. All your periodicals belong to us.
bmovie 03/01/2009 02:22
Greed? Milk cost more than beer. Toilet paper is about a buck and probably has less sheets than last week. Try the price of a hot dog at a movie or a Sports Event. Try the price of a Sports Event or a Jock's salary. Cable TV? The price of gum? The price of a tooth implant without the root canal and the crown which you don't need to know about now, but you should get anyway? Greed? Tell me why Budwiser isn't an American-owned brewery anymore. Tell my why the free checking at my bank costs me twenty bucks for a new set of checks or why it costs me five bucks to cancel my Long Distance service. Tell me again, why doctors don't make housecalls and what the going rate is for a Baptismal or a funeral is? Tylenol? Band-aid? Band-aid with an Action figure on it?
Shopfood Wilsonizer 03/01/2009 04:22
Next thing you know, they will have thier lackeys in Congress bailing them out by robbing pensioners.
Jarrod 03/03/2009 06:59
You should take a look at the New York Times Article Skimmer. It actually is very similar in function to your box example towards the bottom of your post.
http://prototype.nytimes.com/gst/articleSkimmer/
codist 03/03/2009 14:25
Yes I saw that skimmer, it is a good start. But it only links to the main site. Loading other sites is rather like having to open a different newspaper to read an article in the one you are looking at.
Silverhalide 03/03/2009 17:57
There's a couple of things your proposal is missing: editors and editors, and large backers.
First of all, we need someone either before or after the aggregator level to choose an appropriate range of stories that I'll be interested in. Yes I can pick a local feed, and a national feed, and a business feed, and a tech feed, and... but who's going to make sure that the day the national budget is announced, I don't get 70 budget stories, and nothing else? or that we don't get 70 budget stories with the same angle. We need someone out there at least filtering the feeds, and preferably directing the reporters to cover a range of stories.
I know my writing is crap, unfortunately there's a lot of "news sources" out there that aren't so self aware. We need editors out there to tidy up, tighten up, and otherwise polish up the feeds. We need editors send the articles that don't make the cut back to the reporters, so the reporters can improve. Largely, I want to "hear" my news in a consistant voice, and not be jarred when switching feeds.
We need backers for the reporters. We need some way to fund these people while they work for 6 months on an investigative report. We need a way to send someone to some foreign hotspot and have them tell a story that connects with us locally. We also need some kind of protection for those reporters when the company that was written about decides to sue them. Large backers will both disuade frivolous lawsuits, and defend the reporters. And, since large backers want to remain large, and not get sued out of existence, they want to make sure that anything published can be backed up.
We need ways of evaluating trust and bias. I trust the local paper -- why? I don't know, maybe the age, size, reputation -- but I don't have anyway of knowing how to trust some random feed. Even when the local paper uses a freelancer to get a story from some far-off capital where they don't have a reporter, I know that the local paper has done some sort of due diligence on the reporter/report. I also know the bias of my local paper. Sure, it may be left or right leaning, but it's not more than a standard deviation from center. I'm not going to encounter extremist view masquerading as news. I'm not opposed to opinion pieces when marked as such.
Anyhow, what I guess I'm saying is that the problem with all these news aggregator ideas and this concept of a huge firehose of information, is that (a) we have no idea what that liquid spewing from the hose is, and (b) firehoses emit huge amounts of liquid, and I only want a sip.
joe 03/04/2009 15:53
Advertising is what really pays for a newspaper, not subscribers. That's how all those ad-laden local tabloids exist for free in the racks alongside pay-to-read papers. The first thing any newspaper (or magazine for that matter) facing circulation problems should do is move their subscription department personnel to the ad sales department and convert to free distribution (on paper, not the web), thereby removing the primary reason someone doesn't want to pick up a copy. I may be old-fashioned, but when it comes to browsing the news, editorials, comics, sports, business, classifieds, etc., I'd much rather do it with an actual paper than pointing and clicking on a screen full of dancing ads.
Periodic Table 04/21/2009 08:19
An AJAX-ified newspaper would be nice. Instant updates of headlines would be marvelous.
poker wallpaper 04/23/2009 05:07
That's surely find the attention of the internet users.I admit, I have not been on this webpage in a long time... however it was another joy to see It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. I thank you to help making people more aware of possible issues. Great stuff as usual....