The St. Petersburg Times' faux alternative, published for the first time last Friday, is a milestone for our community. While it is tempting to say that I never thought I'd see the day that this would happen, the trends in newspapering have been unrelenting and the Times has finally succumbed to the inevitable: If you can't beat us — join us! In the 1920s, Tampa Bay had more than a dozen newspapers in circulation vying for attention from readers. There were afternoon dailies, morning dailies, ethnic weeklies, and each one of them intensely reflected the diversity of the communities that they served. Communities were geographically tight and it was relatively cheap to print and distribute the papers. The economics were favorable to competition. But in the 1950s and 1960s, when TV and radio advertising exploded and large retailers began to supplant smaller ones, the advertising base for newspapers lessened and the growth of the suburbs made it more expensive to reach readers. The surviving dailies became immensely influential and increasingly monopolistic in their behavior, keeping a noose tied around the community's neck for 50 years.
But now the era of big printing presses, of information flowing from the top down and small cabals of white men calling the shots, is coming to a close. The Internet has changed this, but so have the 24-hour news channels that provide news with a political flavor — do you like your TV news conservative, liberal or moderate? Do you like your websites in your face, subtle or somewhere in between? Do you like your daily newspaper dull, boring or out of touch? Oops, the last one offers no choice.
I've got a favorite website, www.readership.org, that lays out all the facts about what is facing the daily newspaper business, according to research commissioned by the industry itself. The survey tries to put a brave face on bad news — "Readership decline is not inevitable" — and looks at the internal culture of daily newspapers. Daily newsrooms, the report suggests, should stop being insular and resistant to change, and reporters should "cease being out for individual gain." Instead, newspapers are to be experimental, adaptive and collaborative. What you'll find in these reports — surprise! — is that people are interested in newspapers that are real, have a point of view, are useful and have some fun along the way.
Which brings us to the new Times publication. The launch of this publication is proof that its Weekend section has failed and that its efforts to attract young readers have failed. The main paper is telling readers and advertisers that the St. Petersburg Times is unable to attract a younger, hipper audience; essentially, they're throwing in the towel on a 50-year-old business model.
This is actually good news. If the publication is successful, then the community gains a new voice that will be a rival to the mothership in a way that is healthy for the Times and for the community. Let the little Times faux alternative show the monopolistic Times how to have fun doing a newspaper. The Times will help to show more advertisers the value of a free paper reaching a vibrant young readership. We're thrilled that Burdines and International Mall are willing to try an alternative. Ultimately, advertising is what pays for the journalism we all do, so the more dollars invested in alternatives to the daily are great for all concerned.
But I'm pretty puzzled by exactly what the Times is trying to accomplish with its first paper. Venerable editor calling herself "chief news scout" and promising a paper that's "zippy" and "chunky." Lots of info that is pretty weak by Planet standards. Same critics as before, and at least one story recycled from a previous Times edition. A bunch of weird features that run together as a blur. Wire-service blurbs about mid-life crises and stain removal that wouldn't look out of place in, say, Family Circle. And, oddly enough for a publication targeting a youth audience, personal ads that start "SWM, 73 Be By My Side" and "SWF, 67, blonde/blue" (not clear whether she's talking about blue eyes or blue hair).
This just doesn't make any sense. I think the Times is going to screw this thing up right out of the gate. And I'm even more concerned that people might be led to believe that this is somehow what an alternative newspaper is all about.
But take a look at both. Read the Planet and the Times' faux alternative and tell us what you like and what you don't like. Send us an e-mail at letters@weeklyplanet.com; as loyal Planet readers, you can help us a ton by keeping us on our toes. And let the people who have advertised in the Planet this week know how much you appreciate their support for what we do.
This article appears in Sep 15-21, 2004.