This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/25/guardian-view-end-independent-in-print

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on the end of the Independent in print: we mourn a class act The Guardian view on the end of the Independent in print: we mourn a class act
(about 1 hour later)
Newspapers are good at schadenfreude. Taking pleasure at the misfortune of rivals is an instinct baked deeply into the character of many journalists. But few will be celebrating the last printed edition tomorrow of the Independent as it slides off to a new existence in the cloud. Newspapers are good at schadenfreude. Taking pleasure at the misfortune of rivals is an instinct baked deeply into the character of many journalists. But few will be celebrating the last printed edition on Saturday of the Independent as it slides off to a new existence in the cloud.
Related: Independent prints souvenir pullout as it moves to online onlyRelated: Independent prints souvenir pullout as it moves to online only
There are two reasons for a widely shared sense of regret at the Indy’s fate. The first is that it was – especially in its early days – a really rather wonderful newspaper. For the first few years it gave the rest of Fleet Street the fright of their lives. The paper seemed to arrive fully formed. It was modern, but elegantly traditional. It was urbanely written and edited. It reinvented news photography. It had good cultural and foreign coverage and launched the first Saturday colour magazine. It was, in a word, class. There are two reasons for a widely shared sense of regret at the Indy’s fate. The first is that it was – especially in its early days – a really rather wonderful newspaper. For the first few years it gave the rest of Fleet Street the fright of their lives. The paper seemed to arrive fully formed. It was modern, but elegantly traditional. It was urbanely written and edited. It reinvented news photography. It had good cultural and foreign coverage and launched the first Saturday colour magazine. It was, in a word, class.
In 1986 there was no world wide web. Newspaper managements simply had to balance an equation of costs, cover price, advertising – and, often, forms of subsidy. In 1986 the only digital disruption was over whether to allow computers into newsrooms. That alone – the Wapping dispute – was enough to cause the entire newspaper industry to tear itself apart.In 1986 there was no world wide web. Newspaper managements simply had to balance an equation of costs, cover price, advertising – and, often, forms of subsidy. In 1986 the only digital disruption was over whether to allow computers into newsrooms. That alone – the Wapping dispute – was enough to cause the entire newspaper industry to tear itself apart.
The rest of Fleet Street woke up pretty soon to the threat that the upstart newspaper presented. The Telegraph changed owners. The Guardian was forced to raise its game. And Rupert Murdoch did his best to stifle the infant paper by pure financial brute force: he slashed the price of the Times to a level that was predatory in intention, if not in law.The rest of Fleet Street woke up pretty soon to the threat that the upstart newspaper presented. The Telegraph changed owners. The Guardian was forced to raise its game. And Rupert Murdoch did his best to stifle the infant paper by pure financial brute force: he slashed the price of the Times to a level that was predatory in intention, if not in law.
So there is a collective mourning that – many editors and owners later – it didn’t work out. The Independent’s latest proprietors, the Lebedevs, have done their best to keep the gallant paper afloat – well served by a tiny but committed and talented team of journalists – and have conceded defeat. They left digital investment until very late in the day. In the end they simply didn’t have enough money.So there is a collective mourning that – many editors and owners later – it didn’t work out. The Independent’s latest proprietors, the Lebedevs, have done their best to keep the gallant paper afloat – well served by a tiny but committed and talented team of journalists – and have conceded defeat. They left digital investment until very late in the day. In the end they simply didn’t have enough money.
The second reason for the lack of schadenfreude is the acknowledgment that, once again, the Indy may be leading where others might follow. The world of news is being turned upside down and inside out by a digital revolution which seems to be picking up pace by the week. There, but for the grace of the digital gods, go all of us.The second reason for the lack of schadenfreude is the acknowledgment that, once again, the Indy may be leading where others might follow. The world of news is being turned upside down and inside out by a digital revolution which seems to be picking up pace by the week. There, but for the grace of the digital gods, go all of us.
The cost of staying in the game has soared just as the advertising model which sustained newspapers for the best part of two centuries appears to be faltering. The Lebedevs would have had to spend a large fortune on sustaining print while investing in digital – which means video, mobile, whatever comes next. All this is happening as – in the words of the digital guru Emily Bell, “Facebook is eating the world.” The cost of staying in the game has soared just as the advertising model which sustained newspapers for the best part of two centuries appears to be faltering. The Lebedevs would have had to spend a large fortune on sustaining print while investing in digital – which means video, mobile, whatever comes next. All this is happening as – in the words of the digital guru Emily Bell, “Facebook is eating the world.”
Ms Bell, professor of digital journalism at Columbia University, thinks the news ecosystem has changed more dramatically in the past five years than at any time in the past 500. She is right. Facebook alone pocketed revenues of $18bn in 2015 – up 44% year on year. In the last quarter of last year Facebook’s advertising revenues soared 57% from the same period in 2014.Ms Bell, professor of digital journalism at Columbia University, thinks the news ecosystem has changed more dramatically in the past five years than at any time in the past 500. She is right. Facebook alone pocketed revenues of $18bn in 2015 – up 44% year on year. In the last quarter of last year Facebook’s advertising revenues soared 57% from the same period in 2014.
The future of serious journalism is perpetual exploration and experimentation with no obvious or certain path to the future. Some have tried to cut their way out of trouble while jettisoning their ethics. That doesn’t work. The Sun drops its paywall after £250m in losses, while the Times – with opaque accounting – claims its works.The future of serious journalism is perpetual exploration and experimentation with no obvious or certain path to the future. Some have tried to cut their way out of trouble while jettisoning their ethics. That doesn’t work. The Sun drops its paywall after £250m in losses, while the Times – with opaque accounting – claims its works.
But the crucial point is this: the world – perhaps more than ever – still needs reliable, verifiable sources of serious news. Societies need journalism. Great newspapers which have survived for centuries find their business models challenged as never before. So no one will celebrate the end of the Independent in print. It was. Are you… next?But the crucial point is this: the world – perhaps more than ever – still needs reliable, verifiable sources of serious news. Societies need journalism. Great newspapers which have survived for centuries find their business models challenged as never before. So no one will celebrate the end of the Independent in print. It was. Are you… next?