What can be replaced in a newspaper? It’s the paper, not the news

“Newspapers still do some things that can’t be replaced”

That’s a juicy looking headline on Romenesko today. I jumped into that hoping for a good fight.

But it turns out that I mostly agree with Jon Fine, who finishes off his Media Centric column with that take-away quote:

For one thing, city media ecosystems have proven to be vibrant things that constantly spawn new local and niche blogs. The best—never underestimate the voltage one energetic reporter can generate—match or even outdo their traditional rivals in many respects. But not all of them. Newspapers still do some things that can’t be replaced. Unfortunately, we’re about to find out exactly what those things are.

What I think he means (and what I agree with), is that newspapers as an organization spend time and money doing the kind of reporting that is central to the value that journalism brings to our society. If newspapers as companies really disappeared in the next ten years, I think we’d feel the effects.

What I wouldn’t agree with is that the paper product does things that the internet can’t.

To a certain degree, yes, you can do layouts and design work that you currently cannot online. But in terms of actual journalism? No.

The internet, like the paper before it, is simply the medium being used. As long as we’re replacing the newspaper with the newsweb, I don’t think we’ll be losing anything irreplaceable.

If the papers in Fine’s column follow up with their promises (more internet coverage, less paper delivery), I think they’re moving in the right direction. Oil is ridiculously expensive. Paper is expensive. Printing is expensive. It’s all a bit un-environmental.

Eventually we’ll have a digital replacement for regular paper that gets rid of all of those costs. In the meantime, newspapers should be cutting out their (expendable) print and delivery costs, not their (invaluable) human talent.