Committed to the future of print? Uh...

So, there's a little piece in Editor and Publisher that says Mark Zieman has been named president and publisher of the Star. He's been editor for a while now, and was interim publisher since the last publisher left in late January.

Here's a quote from the story:

"Mark understands both the challenges and opportunities facing newspapers today," Gary Pruitt, chairman and CEO of the McClatchy (which owns the Kansas City Star) said in a statement. "He is deeply committed to quality journalism and a future that includes print, digital, and niche publications. He is a wonderful fit to lead the Kansas City Star."

I'm sure he'll be great, that part I don't disagree with. The problem I have with that statement is that I don't think the Star is committed to the future of PRINT publications. Based on a couple of decisions they've made in the past few months that directly affect me as a classroom teacher, it seems like they think the demise of print newspapers is inevitable.

First: Before the end of first semester, I received a letter from the Newspapers in Education director at the Star saying they were discontinuing the NIE program for local schools, but GEE, I can SUBSCRIBE to "eStar in Education."

Really? Great.

First of all, I don't need to subscribe to their website. Secondly, let me think about how in the heck I'm going to teach newspaper design using an online newspaper (and one that is hard to navigate, as well). Third - I'd much rather have my students read the "paper" paper for 10 minutes in the morning instead of turning them loose on the internet. I'd walk holes in the carpet making sure they were actually on the Star's site.

At my school, we're lucky to have enough computers for every student to have their own to use during class - but what about schools that have one, two or three computers per classroom? It's completely ridiculous to expect a teacher in that situation to use an online version of the paper as a teaching tool.

I know when I was at Derby, our papers were paid for by a corporate sponsor, and subscribers also donate their vacation papers to NIE. The Star kept running the "Going out of town? Donate your paper" ad even AFTER they discontinued the program. Surely corporate sponsors were also donating papers in KC?

Longtime blog readers might remember last September, when I wrote about my students' views of print vs. online media.

Here's a little bit of that post:

Take note, those in charge of big online pushes:
“Print for me is better, I like it because it’s delivered to my house everyday. I already know how to use it and know where everything is. It’s (print) easier to read and has better headlines.”

“I probably like the print version better because it’s easier to read and I feel more grown up reading an actual newspaper. I also like all of the color and organization of the print newspaper.”

“I like newspapers. I think the website has a lot more stuff to look at, but the newspaper is more fun. The huge headlines get my attention a lot more than those on the web.”

“I like the feeling of actual newspapers. Newspapers smell good. I think it’s also easier to find what you want in the print newspaper.”

“The internet is not organized in a way that makes me want to read it. Too many ads, too hard to find what I’m interested in.”

And, my favorite:
“I like the newspaper better because you can take it anywhere, touch it, burn it, eat it if you need to do so. Also, you can doodle on the pictures of people you don’t like.”

Obviously, I’ve only given you one side of the story, but the just over half of the students preferred print to online. What I think is interesting about this is that many of them said they find the paper version easier to navigate, and find what you want.

The other decision that just kills me (and will speed the eventual death of their newspaper) is that there no longer is a TeenStar. The weekly section written by and for teens has been discontinued, taking away a wonderful opportunity for local teens to showcase their writing, as well as taking away a part of the newspaper that drew youngsters in. I know it's not a money maker, but for one thing, they don't pay the kids to produce it. (I know there are staff members who work on it, so, yes, it does cost some money...)

People who read the paper now do so because someone set the example for them when they were younger, and they started doing it at a young age. It's a habit you have to build. Kids today will not wake up when they turn 40 and decide to read the paper out of the blue. If I were a newspaper publisher, I'd be doing everything humanly and fiscally possible to get papers into the hands of teens.

I mean, jeez, have you seen the statistics on how much disposable income most teens have? They'll patronize advertisers, for pete's sake.

Does this view make me a dinosaur of sorts? Do I have a romanticized view of the daily newspaper?