Culture and Vigilance: Look for the Whimper, Not the Bang

January 22, 2009 | 3 3 min read

As media business models falter, from The New York Times to the big book publishers, the calamity that seems to have overtaken the public imagination is one of sudden extinction. In Michael Hirschorn’s “what if” piece in the Atlantic Monthly, he asks,

But what if the old media dies much more quickly? What if a hurricane comes along and obliterates the dunes entirely? Specifically, what if The New York Times goes out of business – like, this May?

This dramatic hypothesis makes for good copy, and if 2008 proved anything, it’s that we can’t discount the possibility of our most venerable companies going out of business. But a focus on the dramatic obscures another possibility, an incrementally slow decay in the quality of our culture.

Interestingly, it wasn’t the Atlantic’s piece on The New York Times that got me thinking along these lines, it was NBC’s decision to move Jay Leno to primetime five nights a week. Apparently some maneuvering went into the move – NBC wanted to make sure that another network didn’t grab Leno and put him up against Conan O’Brien – but the more important motive was one of cost savings. Five hours of Leno a week is five fewer hours that the network has to spend on primetime programming. Leno is slated for 10pm each night, the time slot when network TV is likely to air its most adventurous and costly programming. Discussing the move on his Time magazine blog, TV critic James Poniewozic borrowed some lingo from the banking crisis to explain the move:

NBC, like the other big networks – and other big media, including newspapers and magazines – simply has to learn to get smaller. Think of it as de-leveraging, network-style. In an environment of cable, fewer viewers per network and less easily-found revenue, mounting big-budget entertainment three hours a night is less and less viable.

The important thing to recognize here is that NBC’s move – despite the unprecedented economic climate the network faces – isn’t one of dramatic implosion, it is one of lowering the bar and exchanging (the potential for) challenging content, for cheaper and (apologies to Jay Leno) lower quality output.

While not everyone may get exercised by losing five hours of primetime programming – some may even be cheering about it – what’s happening at NBC is undoubtedly happening all across the media and culture landscape, but it may be happening too subtly for us to notice. It’s one thing for The New York Times to suddenly cease to exist (or even for NBC to drop five hours of primetime) – those things make headlines – it’s quite another for these cutbacks and cost savings to occur incrementally, without big announcements to alert us. In the world of newspapers, a handful of reporters here and another handful there might lose their jobs and the ones that stay (who are no doubt less experienced and cheaper to employ) may pick up the slack by grabbing more bylines. In the publishing industry, it is a dozen fewer new books from this or that imprint and a handful of backlist title reprints put on hold. If you pick up the newspaper and it looks the same as it did yesterday, does that mean that you are getting everything out of it that you did yesterday? If you walk into a bookstore and the shelves are full just like they always have been, does that mean that you haven’t missed out on an important – but maybe less marketable – new work that a publisher couldn’t afford to take on?

The larger point here is that proclaiming “the death of this” or “the death of that” obscures what is almost certainly the bigger threat. If The New York Times survives through May, the Atlantic’s worst-case-scenario zero hour, it doesn’t mean that journalism has been saved. Conversely, if The Times does somehow kick the bucket in a few months, the simultaneous outcry would be deafening enough to make us stop and think about what we might be losing. But if the New York Times (and Random House and even NBC) simply slowly waste away, hollowing out until they are mere shells, a few people will surely notice but maybe not until it’s too late, and most people will not notice at all. What are the uncertain consequences of this slowly decaying media and culture?

It’s true that we, as a society, have the ability pick up some of the slack thanks to the participatory and entrepreneurial ethos that has grown out of the Internet, but this culture too is largely advertising based, and it is, for better or worse, fractured and niche-oriented. Rather than the participatory culture of the Internet “maturing” to assume the breadth and authority offered by mainstream, it may just be that mainstream media, as it trims costs and becomes more easily supported by dwindling ad revenue, simply evolves toward the Internet in being fractured and niche-oriented.

What are the lessons here? I’m not sure. Certainly a lot of mainstream media needs a better business model, but we’ve known that for a long time. Beyond that, I think we should be wary of the headline-grabbing doomsday scenarios and be vigilant instead for the slow decline and emerging blind spots as media and culture threatens to waste away.

created The Millions and is its publisher. He and his family live in New Jersey.


  1. Who cares if the NY Times goes bye-bye? I say good riddance. They are irrelevant and they cater to a very small demographic, mainly well-to-do New Yorkers who have summer homes in the Hamptons. And don't tell me they don't. I read the NY Times every Sunday and 80% of that paper is dedicated to 1% of the population. I mean, it's nice to see how the rich live and love and read and eat and spend, it's entertaining, but it's not essential. And that's what's wrong with the NY Times. It's not essential reading anymore. I learn more about the world in 8 hours of trolling the web then I do from reading half a years worth of the Gray Lady.

  2. Well there is something to be said for relevancy, I think. Or capitalism if you want to think in those terms. (You know the whole "market will dictate what is worth paying for".) As a huge fan of the printed word in whatever form it comes in, I can see value even in a paper that, as the last commentator accused, caters to only an elite 1%. In fact, if that individual is correct, then the devolution into "niche-ness", as you were speaking to in your article, has already happened. I mean your average person I think already knows whether the news as reported by Fox News is more to their taste than that of CNN, and views accordingly. Too, many business gurus will tell you that these days, the best business models are those which capitalize on a niche versus being everything to everybody. That said, I understand though that your underlying concern is whether or not there is any point in "niche" news since many would argue that the raison d'etre of this media is to bring readers/viewers an awareness of events larger and farther beyond their own lives and interests. And if people aren't interested in such a thing (and please forgive if this in fact not what you are ultimately asking), then does that herald the advent of an uninformed, uninterested, inhumane society? Perhaps. Or perhaps, as my non-bookworm friends would accuse me of at times, it means the advent of a society that is out there BEING a part of that larger/broader world versus reading about it. In any case, thanks for the thought-provoking article!

  3. A segment of the population will always be seeking high-quality, thought provoking writing and news coverage. The question is, will there be enough of us to support it financially, when the rest of the world has tuned in to Leno?

Add Your Comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.