Newspaper news

While reading Saturday's Globe and Mail on Tuesday I came across a story about a new editor-in-chief being appointed. The new editor-in-chief, John Stackhouse, has been with the paper for a number of years, most recently as the editor of the Report on Business. It seems that the paper is hoping that Stackhouse can develop the web/digital side of the paper. The few pieces I have read on the issue all seem to provide the same basic facts and justifications for the change.

What I found particularly interesting about this development is that a few days earlier Edward Greenspon, the then editor-in-chief of the paper, wrote an editorial about developing new web-based participatory content and trying to move the paper more towards this direction. It is not every day that the editor-in-chief writes about the direction of the paper, nor is it every day that several days after writing about the direction of the paper that they are no-longer editor-in-chief.

I guess what I find a little strange about all of the coverage I have seen is that little attention seems to have been paid to Greenspon's role in all of this, particularly his recent editorial outlining his position on the paper and new media. If the editorial meant anything why was Greenspon replaced by someone who has vowed to make similar changes? It also seems a little unclear whether Greenspon was forced out or voluntarily resigned, though given the bare facts and the timeline I don't see how it could be anything but the former (though I could be wrong). If I am correct, this may explain why we have heard little about what Greenspon in planning on doing in his post-Globe and Mail days (as he on the young side I don't imagine he will just slide into retirement). It also likely explains why we have heard little about why Greenspon is no longer editor-in-chief.

I am hoping that in the coming days I may be able to piece together a little more of the story and understand how this change came about given its seeming abruptness.

On a related topic, I also read that Stackhouse is thinking about reducing the quantity of free content made available by the Globe and Mail, moving to a yet-to-be-determined fee-for-service model. While I have no problem with media outlets making money with their web-based content, I don't see how such a move won't just make the Globe and Mail obsolete as a web-based news source. Why would I pay for a news story when there are other sources giving it away for free? While I am willing to acknowledge that the current system isn't quite functional in terms of revenue generation, I don't see how charging people for online news stories will help solve the problem. The Globe and Mail shouldn't forget that even if all of the private news sources try to charge there are still likely to be public broadcasters and news services (CBC, BBC, NPR, etc.) that will continue providing free online news.