Newspapers: Where are they and where are they going?

I wrote in my last post about my frustration with the Chicago Tribune. But then I was forced to think about newspapers as businesses-- businesses that need to make money. I then came across this post, entitled "10 Ways Newspapers Can Still Make Money" (the list actually includes 12). It was interesting to see at least one person's ideas on how the journalism industry has the potential to evolve, rather than a whole bunch of companies just going under. While ideas 1 and 2, which were ways to get newspapers on the computer, seemed logical to me, number 4 seemed too drastic and was unsettling to me. It parallels the issue of Kindle-like devices versus books. There are lots of people who appreciate the ease of use of something like a Kindle, but I know many people who have said that they like the way it feels to hold a book and turn the pages. I feel as though the same must be true for many newspaper readers who like to wake up to a cup of coffee and a fresh newspaper, even if it results in some ink on the fingers.
This led me to think about idea number 8. Having a weekly publication, while eliminating week-day papers, may be a good way for newspapers to remain in print but saving on printing costs by getting rid of the week-day papers that many people don't read thoroughly anymore because they're getting their news online. If that were too drastic, newspapers could minimize printing costs by only releasing small papers during the week, which would contain major headlines and brief stories. This would be easy for businesspeople to pick up on their way out the door and read quickly during their commute or during breaks at work.
This article and this one demonstrate that not as many people are reading the newspaper. Will people's attachment to printed works be enough to keep newspapers in physical print? Are there any factors besides convenience that contribute to the declining readership of physical newspapers?

Tribune vs. WSJ

Before one can even begin to talk about the quality of the writing of a newspaper, attention should really be paid to the layout of each. I truly believe that the quality of journalism resides not only in the text itself, but in the placement of text and the layout of pages. I believe the primary concern of the front page of a newspaper should be to alert readers to the most important, breaking news stories of the day. It should not be for large photos and fluffy features stories that belong a few pages into the front section and not dominating the front page of a newspaper.
The Chicago Tribune is meant to be a paper that delivers the most important news, while the Wall Street Journal is primarily focused on economics. Nonetheless, it is the WSJ that provides a box entitled "What's News." It gives brief teasers for major stories from around the world, including a group of attacks in Afghanistan that killed 11 people and President Obama's return from his 10-day Asia trip, two news stories that are not even mentioned on the front page of the Trib. In fact, there is no story about Obama's return in the entire front section, and the deadly blasts in Afghanistan are not mentioned until page 12 of the front section.
Furthermore, the Journal just looks like a more legitimate paper in terms of the fonts used, the size of the text, the number of pictures and ads, and the stories included. In 2008, the Chicago Tribune revamped its entire paper in an effort to make it more "reader-friendly." While the layout is certainly pleasing to the eyes, it just seems to have forfeited any attempt to be journalistic. Here's one positive comment on an article about the new design:

Newspapers are not all about the editorial. If that were true, then people would pick up bland, text only newspapers and read them.

In fact, readers hardly read the stories at all. They read headlines, photos and captions. Fish around on the web for some newspaper focus groups and you will see that most readers actually think there is more inside of a newspaper that is designed like the new Chicago Tribune than with a New York Times design.

Readers scan, not read. Give them informational headlines, photos and captions and they might just read the story. Don't give them those things and they won't dig into their pockets to purchase the paper.

Newspapers should be for their readers, not for journalists.

I think this design is nice. I think they could have gone a little bolder with it too.

This commenter says that readers scan papers, which is true. But if that's the case, shouldn't a paper's goal to be to convey as much important information as possible, in an accessible format on the front page? It's true, newspapers need to make money. But when papers like the Tribune focus so very much on a pleasing layout- including enormous teasers, excessive sports photos and information on the front page, and gratuitous advertisements- the core value of journalism is put on the line. Yes, print journalism may be a sinking ship. But as the WSJ shows, it's possible for a paper to have an approachable, reader-friendly layout while still conveying important news to readers.

Frustration

The Global Language Monitor identifies frustration as a key word in news stories about Obama recently, as opposed to anger and rage. A search on the New York Times website identifies 22 articles from today alone that include the word frustration, and it's not just in political articles. So what's special about this word? What differentiates it from anger and rage, and how does it change the meaning of an article or the perception of a political trend to say that people are "frustrated" rather than enraged?

I think frustration carries the weight of time more than rage does. Frustration is the manifestation of a build-up of anger and rage over time, in my opinion. So it makes sense that while words used in association with Obama were previously "anger" and "rage", but now those are replaced with "frustration" as the intensity of the emotion dissipates but the quantity continues to build.
It is not simply the job of newspapers to cover immediate breaking news, but to track trends. The New York Times has "Times Topics" for just this purpose. This topic is all about health care, and a simple search shows that the word "frustration" comes up on the home page for the topic. "Frustration" seems to indicate a period of brewing unrest, perhaps between stages of "rage."
It may seem petty, but to journalists who are struggling to convey issues without infusing bias and without being excessively wordy, differentiating between rage and frustration can be crucial to the effectiveness of the article and readers' understanding. I think tracking the occurrence of the word "frustration" as opposed to the word "rage" would be an interesting task in newspaper reading. Seeing how words are used in context is important for the sake of getting the best understanding out of news stories, and being able to build upon prior knowledge and prior newspaper readings in order to get the fullest meaning out of every word of every story.