I’m not pessimistic about the media. The opposite is, in fact, true. Instead I see the changes continuing, mediums shifting as we alter the way we consume news. Vocus, mentioned here yesterday, is optimistic about the present media because they are a PR firm and they cater to media outlets. They have to be.

Look, brands change, businesses change. People that acknowledge that in the media industry are the ones that can survive and thrive. If you see disruption as an anomaly, a one-off to endure, you’re writing your own fate. This is confusing revolution and evolution, still and again. Transitioning to the Internet was revolutionary (and unnecessarily slow in many respects) for traditional media. It was evolutionary for customers.

For example, look at the newspaper data. Sadly there was a surge of newspaper job cuts in 2011. Advertising sales slid again, far from the golden age of 2005. Almost 4,000 newspaper jobs were eliminated in 2011, according to Paper Cuts, which reports almost 40,000 job cuts since mid-2007. Individually, economically, journalism/community information — no matter how you look at it there’s no good news in that.

Alan Mutter wrote about it recently in E&P:

Barring a miraculous turnaround in the economy, a sea change in the thinking of media buyers or a late-breaking proclivity for print in the sub-geezer population, publishers in ever more communities are likely to reduce the number of days they provide home delivery – or print a newspaper altogether.

Nowhere is the demise of daily delivery more dramatic than in Michigan, where more than two-thirds of the households will be unable get seven-day service after the end of January.

[…]

Anecdotally, we know there are many more cases across the country. We just don’t know how many. Although you would think that ABC, the industry-supported group that audits circulation, and the Newspaper Association of America, the industry’s principal trade group, would want to keep an accurate count of something as important as the dwindling number of daily newspapers, they profess not to know.

[…]

In five-plus years of ever more vigorous retrenchment to salvage some degree of profitability, publishers have trimmed staff, crimped newsholes and outsourced everything from call centers and accounting to production and delivery. With scant behind-the-scenes economies left, publishers now are being forced to make the most conspicuous cuts of all: Reducing the number of days they publish or deliver papers.

It is hard to be optimistic about that. Newspapers are important, yes. Once they were much more important — which is to say, they once played a more prominent role in our civic lives. If enough news outlets of any medium disappear we’ll soon recall how important a service they provide.

The way we get information is necessarily changing. Mutter, again, writes about the next step: big tech companies swooping in over local outlets. “Most local media companies have no idea what’s about to hit them – much less a plan to respond.”

There are reasons to be optimistic, singing the praises of old media because they didn’t disappear last year as fast as the year before that is not optimism. (You can see shades of that, among some newspaper historians at least, since radio first burst into our homes.)

But there are reasons for optimism. Here’s one: we are a part of a great sorting out period of media.

Other things of note: I believe that, a generation from now, we’re going to see a group of great leaders based on the experiences life has put them in. I submit Daniel Rodriguez.

And here’s your rebuttal to that belief. Birmingham was the feature city on The First 48, A&E’s program on real homicide investigations. They were detailing the apprehension and conviction of a guy tied to five murders. There are four members of his family. They’re all in prison on various murder charges.

There is a fair amount of cognitive dissonance here:

Froma Harrop took it in stride, replying “Sure, much of my careful reasoning ended up on the cutting-room floor, but it was fun.”

Meanwhile, on Stephen Colbert’s show he’s announced an exploratory committee to consider the possibility of running for the president of the United States of South Carolina:

And then:

We’re writing a paper about this. I’ve grown more and more convinced that the entire gag is a stunt conceived of making fun of our current election laws. He even nods to it at the end of the segment.