It’s not the Internet that is ailing journalism and newspapers.

We’re killing ourselves.

I was always struck by what Mark Felt, AKA Deep Throat, said to Bob Woodward. He said didn’t like newspapers because he “thought newspapers were too shallow and too quick on the draw. Newspapers didn’t do in-depth work and rarely got to the bottom of events.”

William M. Hartnett writes that his brother and sister-in-law were reporters in a top-50 market up until a few years ago. Yet, even they don’t subscribe to the daily newspaper anymore:

All of which is to say that they were not driven away from the printed newspaper by disruptive digital technologies, at least not primarily. No, they were driven away by our industry’s old problem, the one that was killing us before we found a more convenient villain online: We’re boring. Predictable. Thin in our coverage, and often intellectually lazy and shallow.

Unessential.

These are former reporters. They are not digerati, and yet even they have found little value in the daily newspaper. My girlfriend, a former copy editor, finds the coupons to be the best part of the Sunday Post. She has already read/viewed the news in a much more timely fashion, and the Web allows her to get incredible depth on subjects that newspapers or cable news never could.

The irony is that the local reporting is where newspapers and journalists could be hitting home runs. Instead, we find decreasing amounts of good, local reporting. Journalists are being asked to do more with less — AKA produce shallower content.

I also see many papers with business, tech, health, living and other niche sections. The problem is other publications and Web sites cover those areas much more throughly. With CNET, TechCrunch, etc why would someone want to read shallow and cursory newspaper coverage of the tech industry? Business? Motley Fool, MarketWatch, Wall Street Journal, etc, etc have that covered.

The average daily newspaper, however, could have a monopoly on great local coverage. Local coverage has become so bad lately that we have had to come up with a new term to describe actually covering local events: hyperlocal journalism.

Hyperlocal journalism is real local journalism. The fact that we had to come up with a new term shows how far many journalists and journalism companies have strayed from the beaten path. People care about local journalism, which is why national outlets like ESPN are getting into high school sports.

Sean Blanda writes about how he is tired with token young people stories (or as my professor called them, “the kids these days” stories):

One would think that with young people flocking from their medium, newspapers and other mainstream media outlets would at least take a second to look at how they cover their hemorrhaging demographic. But instead, we see the same recycled stories with no real depth. Allow me to save them the trouble of thinking of “new” story ideas by presenting every story ever written about young people.

Blanda goes on to list eight tired story ideas like “LOL! they use text speak in paperz!” and “We are a bunch of pampered babies.” Stories like these are the zenith of shallow and lazy journalism.

I’m not sure if newspapers ever really connected with this demographic, but patronizing stereotypes aren’t going to win anyone over. And one day “young people” will be “old people,” which is the core demographic of newspapers. Do you really think people who were made fun of by journalists and newspapers when they were younger are really one day going to come around?

To quote my British alter ego, “Not bloody likely!”