????討論報(bào)紙行業(yè)的困境時(shí)，有一點(diǎn)需要非常明確，那就是報(bào)紙行業(yè)不同于其他買賣，或者說它不應(yīng)該只是一門生意。報(bào)紙行業(yè)還肩負(fù)著公共服務(wù)的職能，但這通常會(huì)與出版商們對(duì)利益最大化的追求產(chǎn)生矛盾。實(shí)際上，這一點(diǎn)也是報(bào)紙讀者人數(shù)和收入持續(xù)縮水時(shí)報(bào)社面臨的核心問題：美國許多家報(bào)紙背后的公司大多以追逐利潤為主要目的，甚至是唯一目的，這無益于新聞行業(yè)的發(fā)展。報(bào)紙要想在短期內(nèi)維持利潤，唯一的途徑只有削減成本。

????比如，新奧爾良《時(shí)代花絮報(bào)》（Times-Picayune）的幕后老板是先進(jìn)出版公司（Advance Publications）。近期，該公司宣布，公司將把該報(bào)紙由日刊縮減為每周三期，同時(shí)將進(jìn)行裁員。據(jù)報(bào)道，該報(bào)紙實(shí)際上依然在盈利——只不過盈利能力滿足不了先進(jìn)出版公司的胃口。

????然而，人們?cè)谟懻撨@家報(bào)紙的艱難經(jīng)歷時(shí)忽略了上述事實(shí)。有人甚至故意忽略了其他一些顯而易見的事實(shí)：《時(shí)代花絮報(bào)》的讀者滲透率——即實(shí)際閱讀該報(bào)的潛在讀者比例——在美國名列前茅，超過了75%。雖然先進(jìn)出版公司辯稱，此舉是實(shí)現(xiàn)報(bào)紙數(shù)字化的大膽舉動(dòng)（公司承諾要加大對(duì)公司網(wǎng)站的重視，實(shí)際上這個(gè)網(wǎng)站惡評(píng)如潮）。而且，事實(shí)上，新奧爾良超過三分之一的人口無法上網(wǎng)。此外這座城市尚未從卡特麗娜颶風(fēng)引發(fā)的洪水災(zāi)難中完全恢復(fù)，當(dāng)?shù)卣紊系母瘮栴}也讓這座城市焦頭爛額，而今年秋天，新奧爾良又將成為美國第一座沒有紙質(zhì)日?qǐng)?bào)的大城市。

????在有些城市，“數(shù)字化優(yōu)先”的策略或許是不錯(cuò)的選擇。而且，對(duì)于有些報(bào)紙來說，不論是壓縮還是徹底取消紙質(zhì)報(bào)紙，數(shù)字化都是很好的主意。但無論如何，新奧爾良絕對(duì)不適合做第一個(gè)吃螃蟹的城市，雖然削減周一、周二、周四和周六的版本在短期內(nèi)可以提高報(bào)紙利潤。

????《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》（New York Times）媒體作家戴維?卡爾在對(duì)先進(jìn)出版公司的決定大肆稱頌時(shí)，根本沒有提到報(bào)紙實(shí)現(xiàn)盈利的問題?？萍疾┛虶igaOM的馬休?英格拉姆對(duì)這個(gè)問題也避而不談。英格拉姆是數(shù)字化必勝理論的堅(jiān)定支持者和一名優(yōu)秀的“公民記者”，他認(rèn)為，先進(jìn)出版公司的這一決定更加證明，“行將就木”的紙質(zhì)媒體即將成為歷史，報(bào)業(yè)公司最好現(xiàn)在就開始向網(wǎng)絡(luò)陣地轉(zhuǎn)移?；蛟S是這樣吧，但不管怎樣，根本不提《時(shí)代花絮報(bào)》目前還是一家盈利企業(yè)的事實(shí)，又有什么資格討論這個(gè)話題？先進(jìn)出版公司的決定并非是對(duì)數(shù)字化未來進(jìn)行投資，這一舉動(dòng)恰恰證明了這家報(bào)業(yè)公司的企圖：它只想盡快將每一分利潤都撈進(jìn)口袋里。

????One of the challenges of discussing the besieged newspaper business is that it's not like just any business, or it shouldn't be. There is a public-service component to newspapering that is often at odds with the pursuit of maximum profits. That, in fact, is the industry's core problem as readership and revenue continue to dwindle: Many of the nation's newspapers are owned by corporations that are concerned primarily or solely with profits, which often isn't good for journalism. The only way to maintain profits in the short-term is to cut costs.

????The New Orleans Times-Picayune, for example, is owned by Advance Publications. That company recently announced that it would soon cut production from daily to three days a week, and that there will be layoffs. The paper reportedly is profitable -- it's just not profitable enough for Advance.

????Many of the discussions of the paper's travails leave out that fact. Some also leave out some other salient facts: The Times-Picayune's penetration -- the proportion of the potential audience that actually reads the paper -- is among the highest in the country, at more than 75 percent. And although Advance spins its plans as a bold step into the digital future (it promises more emphasis on its typically terrible Web site), more than a third of New Orleans' population has no Internet access. Nevertheless, that beleaguered city, still recovering from the flooding after Hurricane Katrina and dealing with an endemically corrupt political culture, this fall will become the first major American city without a daily printed newspaper.

????A "digital first" strategy might be a great idea in some cities. It might even be a good idea for some papers to cut back or even eliminate their print editions. But New Orleans is perhaps the worst possible place to try it first, even if dispensing with the Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday editions will improve the paper's margins in the short run.

????David Carr, a media writer for the New York Times, didn't mention that the paper is profitable in his (otherwise fine) writeup of the decision. Nor did GigaOM's Mathew Ingram -- a reliable digital triumphalist and champion of "citizen journalism" -- in either of his writeups. Ingram sees the decision as just more evidence that "dead tree" media (he actually uses that hoary phrase) is on its way out, and that newspaper companies had better get with the online program. Maybe so, but you simply can't address this topic without even mentioning that the Times-Picayune is, right now, a profitable enterprise. Advance's decision isn't an investment in the digital future -- it's simply proof that Advance wants to squeeze every nickel it can out of the operation as quickly as possible.?