And the readers respond

A couple of weeks ago, I asked you to help me try to make the Times a paper you're more interested in reading. My column ran both here on my blog, and in the pages of the paper. And you responded. I have to date responded to about 50 replies, and they're still trickling in. So to those of you who took the time to engage in a conversation with me about the paper, thank you.

There are some frequent themes in your replies. Most of you, though not all, think the Times is a pretty good newspaper overall. You compared us favorably to newspapers in Syracuse, Albany, Utica, Buffalo and Rochester, many noting the comprehensive national and world coverage we provide that has been slipping in many other daily newspapers. And many of you lauded our local coverage, with some telling me the Times is and should continue to be the "go to" site for news of Northern New York.

In other areas, however, you were brutally frank about your relationship with the Times. Several took issue with the paper's editorial pages, for various reasons. Many of you are unhappy that we reduced the opinion section by a page. One reader wrote "I miss the op-ed page. Here we have the opinions, whether you agree or not, of some of the best thinkers in this country and others and [now] you just do not have room." Another said "Now, the paper does not have the opinion page, limited editorial comments by local residents (and when there are editorials by local residents the editorials are dominated by a select few)." And a few of you criticized the newspaper's owners for their viewpoints. One reader wrote "I'm very disappointed in the paper's becoming such an obvious vehicle to spread Mr. Johnson's personal anti-wind power venom."

Many of you, though no one that I could discern who was under the age of 40, lamented the digitization of news and the move to instant gratification offered by the Internet. There is obviously a keen awareness among our readers of the challenge we face. One reader wrote "What I want to know is, if all the newspapers and network news fold, who will be paying the reporters then? If no one pays them and there are no more reporters, where are all these on-line news sources going to get their 'free' news in the future?"

Hard to hit the nail any more squarely on the head than that.

We learned a lot from your comments. A lot of you are unhappy with the new television listings and want us to go back to the old TV listings insert. Some of you don't like the three-section Saturday and Monday papers and want us to go back to the standard four sections. Some of you love our coverage of crime and police news, some of you hate it. As I noted above, many requested the return of the op-ed page.

And many of you offered creative suggestions. One reader suggested a monthly photography contest for readers, with the submissions run in the paper and on-line. One suggested the dedication of space to a weekly "green" section, with news focusing on the environment and how we can be more kind to it. Another was so pleased that I had asked for comments that he suggested we do that more regularly. And there were many other ideas that we are considering.

While management at the paper is reviewing all the letters, there are some things I think I can address that will not please everyone. A lot of you suggested we go back to an afternoon publication because the morning paper's news is "stale." This is a widely held perception that simply isn't true. Consider: you now receive your paper with events of the previous day and night (and the "and night" is important) at 6 a.m. Under the old schedule, we began printing the paper at 1 p.m. or thereabouts. That means that when you got it at about 5 p.m., news from the previous night's local meetings and events was nearly 12 hours older than when you're getting it now. As for national news, we would legitimately advance the stories by a mere six hours – from the time you get the morning paper, to noon when the paper was being put to bed. Not a lot happens in that period, meaning that rather than having national news that is perhaps 18 hours old, you were frequently getting news well more than a day old. Indeed, throughout the industry, the trend to morning publication has been driven by an effort to keep the news fresher and more competitive with television. That is largely lost by the Internet-driven news cycles of today.

I also have to say that returning to larger sections and restoring things like the TV section are unlikely to happen. To remain profitable, newspapers have had to do a lot of rethinking of how we do business. The cost of newsprint has well more than doubled since I started in this industry in 1972. The Times, like every other paper still going, has worked very hard to reduce this hard-copy cost. You might recall that the width of the paper – know as the web size in the industry – has been reduced noticeably from a few years ago. That has resulted in a significant cut in paper use with a minimal impact on news content. But more was needed. Reducing the number of pages we print is the most effective way to do that. The difficulty is to do that with the minimum impact on our readers, and I can testify that some of the decisions that have been made in regard to that have been extremely difficult for the paper's owners.

It was interesting to note, as well, that while I received immediate responses to the first publication of my request to you on my blog, the vast majority of the responses were generated after my column appeared in print. Clearly, there are a lot of devoted newspaper readers who are worried about the fate of newspapers in general, and this paper in particular. (One reader wrote "Basically I don't like the newspaper but keep getting it." I have no idea how to respond to that.) That so many responses came from the print edition says we have a lot of loyal readers. But nearly every one of you made a reference to the pressure we are feeling from the Internet.

Unlike the doomsayers, most of whom are found only on the Internet, I don't believe newspapers are dead. We will suffer retrenchment, we will suffer losses, but eventually, the perils of relying solely on the Internet to bring you the news are going to be more obvious to everyone. And I believe that the "information should be free" creed of the Internet is going to bump up against the reality that there is a cost to providing accurate information, and someone is going to have to pay that cost. Valid news organizations are going to exist, because they must. One of the most reasonable forms of that type of organization is newspapers. Offering our product both on the newsstand and online will eventually make us stronger. And when major information sources go behind a pay wall on the Internet, as the New York Times has announced it will do and as the Wall Street Journal already does, the Times will likely follow. And that trend could level off the abandonment of the printed newspaper, which would be good for everyone.

Meanwhile, I'll keep trying to do my part to bring you the best Watertown Daily Times we can produce. Now that you've engaged in a conversation with me, I invite you to continue it. Keep those cards and letters – and e-mails – coming; my mailbox is always open to you, and I'll respond to you all. And thanks for checking in.