But didn’t newspapers originate as a local marketing service? Yes, they informed and offered thought. And that service was valuable and sought by most people. And because that was sought by most people, advertisers could use the newspaper as a local marketing service. And newspaper’s needed that money to stay afloat.

And so the necessary evil of newspaper advertising began. Editorial and advertising were always kept as separate departments to keep one from influencing the other. For that reason, advertising on the Op-Ed sections just isn’t done. But without advertising revenue, newspapers can’t sustain themselves.

So if a newspaper changes it’s business model for selling ads, becoming a Media Buying Service, then what’s the problem? The newspaper’s just trying to find a new way to stay profitable so it can get back to the work journalists actually care about: journalism.

I’ve always said newspapers should be in the publishing industry. They have the presses. That still is one asset they have which hasn’t become cheaper (printing in mass is still a tough job).

If they found a way to leverage that they could be the printers for local citizen journalism websites that want to go into print.

So newspapers don’t seem to under that, from a commercial point of view, they are in the “audience aggregation business,” and not the “new business.”

True, news is used to aggregate an attractive and affluent, albeit aging and declining audience. But that’s one of only many audiences newspapers could aggregate if they applied their brands, their sales forces, and their smarts to devising new products in forms other than print. Why, for example, are newspapers not selling the ads I see on the screen before a movie at my local theatre?