By Oh Young-jin
Assistant Managing Editor
The head of a major vernacular newspaper recently observed, "If we enter the broadcasting business, we will go bankrupt in 10 years. If we stay away and just continue what we have been doing, we will be able to survive for 20 years."
The remarks can clearly be interpreted as a strong indication that the paper is not interested in pursuing one of a couple of "comprehensive cable channels," which is set to offer an equal range of programs to the existing three network broadcasters.
The TV business is widely touted as a life-saving business model for the print media.
On the flip side, however, it is not hard to see that he has accepted the long-running prophecy of an inevitable end to print media, with his priority now being to seek ways of keeping his newspaper empire afloat as long as he can.
Of course, he is neither alone nor the first to resign himself to this doomsday theory. From the New York Times to Le Monde, depressed ad sales and dwindling subscription rates have been foreboding this tragic end.
The situation is so dire that even perky New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd ruefully wrote some time ago about the end of days for newspapers.
The domestic newspaper industry is also tackling similar problems and is coping with it just as dismally as in other countries.
The cause of this unfolding apocalypse is none other than the omnipotent and ubiquitous Internet. The Internet has brought a greater variety of news from a wider range of sources and made it easier to access, thus cheapening news or what Internet people first called content. It is also instantaneous.
We all know how Naver, the king of portals, has pitted newspapers against each other and forced them to engage in a self-defeating competition.
By all appearances, it seems to be about time that we in the "traditional" newspaper business should determine whether or not to accept this death by consensus and pack up for some other job.
Or does it?
Before grappling with this case of Hobson's choice, let's evaluate the whole situation from the point of view of our strengths, for a change.
First, a daily newspaper reported a gathering of leaders of the extended Hyundai family in which Chung Mong-koo, chairman of Hyundai-Kia Automotive Group, or known as his initials MK, would take over Hyundai Engineering and Construction.
The construction firm, founded by the late tycoon Chung Ju-yung, the Hyundai family patriarch, has been under creditors' control for years and is now put on the block for a new owner.
Although Hyundai PR officers denied that such a family gathering had ever taken place, it is widely believed that, out of an obligation as the eldest surviving of the late Chung's children, Mong-koo, should take over the firm.
The real story, however, was the report triggered a selling spree on Hyundai Motor's stocks, reducing its market cap by 3 percent or to the tune of over 1 trillion won. The investors obviously worried that the purchase might over-expand the carmaker's business portfolios and weaken its business focus.
The second example is the impact of a recent expose in the Rolling Stone magazine that portrayed Gen. McChrystal, U.S. President Obama's top man in Afghanistan, for being insubordinate. McChrystal was forced to resign.
It is possible that we have opted to take this strength for granted. Instead, we are letting ourselves become trapped in a vicious cycle of this self-defeating, self-fulfilling end-of-days prophecy.
Then, the next question would be "what about the bottom line?"
It is true that few newspapers are making more money than before as Internet outlets or other modern avenues are taking away advertisement revenue.
On this issue, it is worth taking some time to reflect.
If we in the newsroom are so accustomed to setting the agenda and telling the readers what to do, there are ways of expanding this one-way street into a two-way street.
Perhaps, giving them a bigger say can be an alternative.
This can be made possible in a variety of ways, one being inviting the readers to become reporters and designers and make a section of the newspaper deal with topics of their interest and expertise.
This is the concept of "a newspaper inside a newspaper," which calls for a change in the objective of a traditional newsroom from news provider to news compiler and distributor. In the process, the readers will take over part of the news-gathering role so far assumed by the newspapers. In a nutshell, it will invite more people to read or get involved in traditional newspapers, bringing a greater amount of income to newspapers.
Simply put, this new format will offer a "longer tail" for a newspaper, turning it into a compilation of "niche" pages, catering to each small bit of the audience for their interest and needs. It is like selling more of the few.
Maybe, then, newspapers would no longer be called newspapers.
Some of you might say, "I have been there" or remain unconvinced of the viability of newspapers. We will see.