MarkWhittaker.com

Newspaper companies need to find new leadership that can bridge the gap between the old- and new-media worlds, according to a partner in an executive search and leadership advisory firm.

In fact, “There is a digital talent emergency in publishing companies as they transform into full-blown, digitally-oriented companies,” says Lynne Seid, a partner in the Global Consumer Marketing Practice at Heidrick & Struggles.

In the world of the iPad and other tablet devices, publishing companies need to find leaders who have skills in both traditional and digital media, Seid says. And she didn’t even mention the continuing evolution of the Web, the growth of mobile or social media.

Seid suggests that media companies need more than just “change agents,” they need people with new skills, including the ability to redefine the jobs that make up the typical media organization. In the digital era, she asks, what is a publisher? An editor? A circulation director? “What is the head of sales actually selling?” she says.

This digital talent emergency has been building within the newspaper industry for years, and it would be easy to pile on and criticize the industry’s current leadership for failing to seek and develop digital management talent. And it would be unfair to suggest that ALL publishing companies have failed to recognize the need for digital talent and leadership.

The real question is what do they do now? I’m sure Seid would encourage publishers to engage Heidrick & Struggles to help them figure it out. But the industry doesn’t need to look to far for digital talent. A great deal of the talent and digital expertise they need is either within their own organizations or was at one time. Sadly, a lot of digital talent has moved out of the publishing industry after growing weary of the constant battle to prove digitial’s importance.

But they’re still out there, and even though they work with with electrons and clouds and social networks, many of them still have ink in their blood.

The tech world worked itself into a frenzy as it anticipated the unveiling of Apple’s new tablet device, and rarely has there been so much fuss over such an incremental change in technology.

At least that’s what it seemed like when I first started reading about the new iPad during and after Steve Jobs’ press event Wednesday. After all, the iPad looks an awful lot like an iPhone or iPod Touch — only bigger — but it doesn’t make phone calls or take pictures. It will surf the Web like a personal computer, but, well, it’s not a PC.

Oh sure, the iPad will be easy to use like an iPhone. And it will do a great job displaying photos, video and other Web or electronic content, but so does any computer with a decent monitor. So the hoopla over the arrival of the iPad has me puzzling about a couple of things. First, why am I going to need (want) one? Second, how the heck is this not-quite-phone-not-quite-computer going to save the news publishing industry?

If you’re a gadget freak, an Apple fanatic or a serial first-adopter, you already want (need) one. But as with its other revolutionary products, Apple isn’t after you. It’s after the rest of us. (For the record, I’m not an early adopter. I never had a personal cell phone until I bought my iPhone in December 2008. I bought a MacBook Pro in June 2009 because my 5-year-old PC just wasn’t fast enough. And just this week I finally replaced my 11-year-old tube TV with an LCD, high def TV).

Honestly, I can’t think of many reasons I’d want to buy an iPad. I love my iPhone and some of cool applications I’ve acquired for free from the Apple App Store. I’m fond of my MacBook, which handles all of my personal and professional needs very well. What would I do with a device that doesn’t quite work as well as my computer or my phone?

I used to wonder why I would need a mobile phone. After all, I’ve always had a landline in my home. Now, however, I wouldn’t go anywhere without my iPhone. And it doesn’t have much to do with calling people. It has more to do with access to maps, e-mail, Facebook, the electronic notepad, weather forecasts, and the camera. It turns out, it’s a handy gadget, and it’s made my life better and easier in ways that I didn’t expect when I bought it.

The iPad will win fans and customers in the same way, especially after software developers start building applications and utilities that some of us can’t yet imagine.

And that leads me to some of things folks are already imagining for the iPad, like, for example the salvation of the newspaper and magazine industries. The logic seems to be that newspapers can once again be paid for content if they push it onto iPads and then charge folks for downloading it, a la music from the iTunes store, or perhaps an app from the App Store.

As a journalist, I fell in love with the World Wide Web because it offers multiple ways to tell stories — words, sounds, pictures, animation and video. But after more than 10 years of exposure to the Internet as a story-telling tool, most newspaper companies are only now beginning to take advantage of the multimedia possibilities of the Web. What makes anybody think that newspapers will suddenly see the light and generate multimedia content that people will PAY for on a tablet device like the iPad?

Granted, there’s a glimmer of hope. If you’ve not seen this demo of an issue of Sports Illustrated issue made for a tablet, you need to check it out. It’s brilliant. But it’s just a demo, and it’s not the kind of thing newspapers are likely to produce day in and day out. There’s not much point in rehashing the arguments about why newspapers are failing in a multimedia world. It’s simply enough to note that they’ve failed.

Really, the future of the iPad doesn’t depend on what content producers — newspapers, magazines, television studios, movie makers and musicians — want to put on it. The future depends on what iPad buyers want to do with it. And that remains to be seen.

What might you want to do with an iPad? Write a comment!

Government subsidies and philanthropy are among the solutions to saving American journalism, according to a report commissioned by the Columbia University School for Journalism.

The report, co-authored by former Washington Post editor Leonard Downie Jr. and Columbia communications professor Michael Schudson, provides a comprehensive look at the transformation now occurring in journalism. The 100-page document concludes with six recommendations to help answer this question: “What is going to take the place of what is being lost, and can the new array of news media report on our nation and our communities as well — or better than — journalism has until now?”

Here are the recommendations:

1. The IRS or Congress should allow any organization substantially devoted to reporting on public affairs to be treated as a nonprofit organization or a Low-profit Limited Liability Corporation.

2. Philanthropists, foundations, etc. should increase their support for news organizations that demonstrate commitment to public affairs and reporting that tracks public accountability.

3. Public radio and television should be “reoriented” to provide significant local reporting. Increased congressional funding is proposed.

4. Universities should provide news reporting as part of their educational missions by operating their own news organizations and employing working journalists on their faculties.

5. Create a national “Fund for Local News” created with money the Federal Communcations Commission now collects — or could collect — from telecom users, TV and radio broadcast licensees or Internet service providers. The money would be administered by Local News Fund Councils.

6. Increase access to and usefulness of public information collected by federal, state and local governments to make it easier for citizens to gather and disseminate.

The report provides a comprehensive look at the many new journalism efforts that have been spawned over the last few years thanks to weakening of the newspaper industry. It covers everything from the emergence of bloggers as credible news sources to news agencies such as ProPublica that are funded by foundations and grants.

The report assumes that newspapers will remain as a source of local reporting, but worries that cuts in reportorial staffing will leave many communities underserved by solid journalism. Downie and Schudson should also get credit for recognizing that good journalism can occur in media other than print.

Underlying the report, however, is the unstated assumption that news consumers and advertising will NOT pay for journalism. The report cites several examples of new journalistic enterprises that generate at least some of their revenue from advertising, but the general sense is that advertising alone will not support the efforts.

The paid-content model being debated so heavily throughout the newspaper industry is mentioned, but Downie and Schudson don’t seem to give it serious consideration.

I found a bit of irony in this report. It devotes pages and pages to descriptions of new efforts to re-invent journalism. In effect, it’s a description of the revolution that’s already underway. However, the recommendations seem to be an effort to preserve journalism as it currently exists. Downie and Schudson have given us a glimpse into the future of journalism while they are still rooted in the past.