First of all, I’d like to thank (Tucker Carlson; Arianna Huffington; that tweedy-looking professor over there) for the opportunity to discuss the future of newspapers and print journalism.
We meet at a time when our beloved industry is (in a period of historic transition; completely hosed; in more trouble than the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome).
Like you, I love the newspaper business. I (read five or six papers a day; got a week-a-year severance deal back when the getting was good; was in my forties before I realized I had a job but not a career).
Almost every day someone asks me (for advice on whether to go to journalism school; how to become the London bureau chief for The New York Times; if I have a phone number for Burson-Marsteller).
And I always say the same thing: (Go for it, my friend; Why don’t you go outside and lay down in traffic?; I could tell you the truth but it’s too painful for both of us).
It’s true that when I was coming up you could (write your way out of South Bend; have someone help you file your story if you got drunk; fool yourself into thinking you had a professional future).
Yes, those were great days. But you didn’t come here to listen to (an embittered geezer; a guy with a four-and-a-half-bathroom house on 29th St. in Georgetown; complete sophistry about the future of print).
No, you want to (hear twenty-first century jargon such as “crowdfunding” and “reader engagement”; think you can be a salaried columnist when if you’re lucky you’ll end up as a “digital community manager”; believe that really smart people in newsrooms are getting a handle on all this).
Some may scoff. But I would encourage you to pursue that dream, because (newspapers fold but journalism school is forever; there may come a time when people will decline to write for nothing; maybe the MacArthur Foundation will pick up the tab for everything).
If I could say just one thing to you that is (reason for optimism; the main takeaway from my upcoming book on the future of news; palpably untrue and yet said all the time in these sessions), it would be: (The old business model isn’t working but you may be the one to identify the new model; The future lies in “hyperlocal” news; The answers can be found in incorporating advertising into Kindle content and smart phone applications).
In fact, innovation is everywhere. It’s true that the early results for “citizen journalism” (have been mixed; tell us that with free content you generally get what you pay for; exposed fundamental misunderstandings of the difference between reporting and bloviating).
If you’re like me, when you hear of the need for newspapers to move beyond the “monopoly mindset” and function better as “a filter,” you think (it makes a heck of a lot of sense; Dick Nixon would’ve loved that; give readers less, tell them it’s more).
And when you hear of the imperative to “personalize the news,” you think (I love white space; co-branded flea markets; hey, I can now personally read my hometown paper in about five minutes).
Cynics often compare the newspaper to the dinosaur. But remember that (dinosaurs roamed the earth for millions of years; many had brains the size of walnuts, much like Chief Innovation Officers; extinction theories abound but we know the end came abruptly).
New voices have come to the table. The passion we feel is now shared by (former radio execs who love hanging banners in the newsroom; bright young folks who tell Romenesko that credentialing reporters is elitist; the folks down at the news co-op who are kind of fixated on their non-profit tax status right now).
We welcome them all. I’d love to stay and entertain some questions, but (I’m on CNN with Rick Sanchez in twenty-five minutes; I don’t have any good answers; I have to get back to a mandatory newsroom seminar on search engine optimization).
Going forward I wish you all what I have enjoyed—a long and fulfilling career in the newspaper game.

Steve Daley not only gets it.
He knows how to write it.
#1 Posted by Carol Marin, CJR on Tue 6 Apr 2010 at 02:34 PM
More profound than any APME seminar -- if AP still can afford to have them.
#2 Posted by Adam Clymer, CJR on Tue 6 Apr 2010 at 04:56 PM
Daley's done it again. He's made me smile recalling many less informative, but similar sessions attended over the years. Spot on.
#3 Posted by Elaine Povich, CJR on Tue 6 Apr 2010 at 05:24 PM
Truer than any speech any media mogul ever gave.
#4 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Tue 6 Apr 2010 at 10:24 PM
Now, if there were writers like Steve back in newsrooms, we would (not be lamenting the passing of an era; enjoy going to work everyday; look forward to happy hour at the Goat.)
#5 Posted by Mitchell Locin, CJR on Tue 6 Apr 2010 at 11:37 PM
Thanks, Steve, for looking behind the curtain. I always had a feeling about that wizard!
#6 Posted by NotfromKansas, CJR on Wed 7 Apr 2010 at 09:04 AM
Thanks, Steve, for looking behind the curtain. I always had a feeling about that wizard!
#7 Posted by NotfromKansas, CJR on Wed 7 Apr 2010 at 09:05 AM
The man speaks truth. The best one yet. Very possibly the best MadLib ever written. No doubt helped by the heaping helping of bitterness, though I must say it becomes you, dear Steve...
#8 Posted by Ivy Richards, CJR on Wed 7 Apr 2010 at 10:04 AM
Oh, me: PAINFULLY familiar!
#9 Posted by Geneva Overholser, CJR on Wed 7 Apr 2010 at 10:48 AM
Another greate piece by Steve Daley. Good for a laugh but also spot on...
#10 Posted by Callie Wolk, CJR on Wed 7 Apr 2010 at 10:56 AM
Steve likes to hear himself write, but I didn’t see any innovative ideas on how to “make money” with our new mediums. Where will our paychecks come from without new revenue ideas? Anyone can write about our business, but few can crack the revenue issue. Better get cracking!!!
#11 Posted by karl, CJR on Wed 7 Apr 2010 at 11:42 AM
In the heyday of Geezers, chickens lay, people lie down and the meal was really nice...
#12 Posted by Pre J school era, CJR on Wed 7 Apr 2010 at 12:58 PM
Leave it to dreamers to dream of yet-to-be discovered revenue models...while doers go out and invent Google.....which basically has the same revenue model that newspapers have used for at least a hundred years.
#13 Posted by Stacy, CJR on Wed 7 Apr 2010 at 02:56 PM
Revenue model is....provide content (or a means to access content) that people want and/or need, and that makes the world a better place...and provide advertisers with eyeballs. Old revenue model. Not new. There are no new revenue models. Stop dreaming. Start doing.
#14 Posted by Stacy, CJR on Wed 7 Apr 2010 at 03:00 PM
Love me some Steve Daley.
#15 Posted by Eddie Garrett, CJR on Wed 7 Apr 2010 at 07:57 PM
iPad DEEP THROAT tells me: ...., Hey pal, this is ''Off the record''.
Most important thing about the
iPad right now is that it is a Kindle competitor. This is vital for
publishers, and my media moles tell me that Amazon's revenue split
with publishers for the Kindle have been revised radically in favor of
the latter. And we haven't seen full rollouts of Google smarphones or
any Google tablets yet. It's unlike other concentrations of power in
communication history, a brawl of vicious but mutually dependent
competitors, chaotic and thus unknowable and unpredictable. And
especially ''off the record'', the problem of nearly all professional
technology journalism is that these guys need access -- and their
bosses have all kinds of deals with Apple etc. With that kind of
interest, who needs expense-paid junkets or stock ownership. Again,
Pal, this all off the recordbut feel FREE TO blog on this keeping my
name out of it. And don't tell Esther or Kevin Kelly, capice?
#16 Posted by dan bloom, CJR on Wed 7 Apr 2010 at 10:40 PM
Steve....iPad DEEP THROAT tells me: ...., Hey pal, this is ''Off the record''.
Most important thing about the
iPad right now is that it is a Kindle competitor. This is vital for
publishers, and my media moles tell me that Amazon's revenue split
with publishers for the Kindle have been revised radically in favor of
the latter. And we haven't seen full rollouts of Google smarphones or
any Google tablets yet. It's unlike other concentrations of power in
communication history, a brawl of vicious but mutually dependent
competitors, chaotic and thus unknowable and unpredictable. And
especially ''off the record'', the problem of nearly all professional
technology journalism is that these guys need access -- and their
bosses have all kinds of deals with Apple etc. With that kind of
interest, who needs expense-paid junkets or stock ownership. Again,
Pal, this all off the recordbut feel FREE TO blog on this keeping my
name out of it. And don't tell Woodward or Bernstein, capice?
#17 Posted by danny bloom, CJR on Wed 7 Apr 2010 at 11:10 PM
Innovation and quality content will always win. On target.
#18 Posted by Michele Weldon, CJR on Thu 8 Apr 2010 at 10:47 AM
Innovation and quality content will always win. On target.
#19 Posted by Michele Weldon, CJR on Thu 8 Apr 2010 at 10:49 AM
As usual, it's so perfect it makes me weep either with laughter... or because I know this will be referenced as fact in someone's future research.
#20 Posted by Barbara Williams, CJR on Thu 8 Apr 2010 at 11:07 AM