In 1987, Crispin Glover — more commonly known as George McFly — went on Late Night with David Letterman donning a long, brown wig and platform shoes, and he proceeded to act as if he either wanted to usurp Andy Kaufman’s throne or set the world record for peyote ingestion. Amid Glover’s bizarre, high-pitched ramblings, Dave, ignoring his guest, asked World’s Most Dangerous Band leader Paul Shaffer, “Is this the first time you’ve watched a guy die?”

The newspaper industry may not be dressing up, but it is dying before our eyes, and while this is nothing new, there is still an odd sense of entitlement among those still playing as the ship begins to sink.

In this week’s Isthmus cover story, “The Future of Journalism,” Jay Rath ran through the litany of issues facing both journalism in Madison and the industry as a whole. Noting both internal problems — not creating an effective online business model may have been the most shortsighted industry move since “Dewey Defeats Truman” — and external pressures from a less patient public, the piece harkened back on several occasions to the close relationship between many blogs and advertising companies.

This is an obvious and obviously real fear. Even Rupert Murdoch ultimately understands the importance of unbiased news sources, and in an ocean of internet blogs, you’re bound to find a few dead fish.

Even more, the article addressed common outsider responses to the modern newspaperman’s claims of integrity, noting that unbiased journalism is largely a product of the mid-to-late 20th century, and that reporting and PR have a history of tense interaction. After all, those are the two tracks in UW’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

But there are brief moments when the level-headed tone gave way to, if not arrogance, then a sense of mistrust. Statements like “As newspapers struggle to survive, bloggers are rushing to fill the information void. We’re left with Internet sideshows driven by corporate bribery,” can speak volumes toward current attitudes among traditional journalists, and because it’s their jobs at stake, who can blame them? But with print losing power and web-based information tightening the noose, this disregard for future colleagues could turn an already difficult transition into a war.

And although sports journalism is probably not the most vital battleground in the old guard’s fight for survival, it was the one willing to draw early, firm battle lines.

The job of the baseball beat man has changed greatly in the last few years, with many newspapers unwilling to support multiple writers for the position — not to mention the travel costs associated with a 162 game season. Whether or not this spurred the rise of the online baseball community is up for debate, but with ESPN devoting daily web space to non-traditional writers like Rob Neyer and Keith Law, and the Baseball Writers Association of America finally opening its doors to web publications, one might think this is the perfect opportunity for camaraderie. At least until the new guys try to speak up.

The problems (at least the most recent problems) started when Law and Baseball Prospectus’ Will Carroll used their NL Cy Young ballots to give votes to Javier Vazquez and Dan Haren. Certain writers, most notably Sports Illustrated’s Jon Heyman, used the votes as an opportunity to bash Law and Carroll in print and television for what he deemed to be “dumb” choices, if only because they relied on different forms of logic to reach their conclusions. Ultimately, instead of reaching any reasonable disagreement on the issue, the public was left with nothing more than a Twitter skirmish between Heyman and other online contributors, with both sides too bloated with pride to admit any juvenile behavior.

Murray Chass, a former New York Times journalist and J.G. Spink Taylor Award winner (a baseball writing prize giving out at the Hall of Fame ceremony) is another example of curmudgeonly traditionalists openly dissing the change they’ll soon be forced to embrace. Chass had this to say about the Baseball Bloggers Alliance, a group that fell out of his favor for misusing “both” and not properly using decimals in a release: “I have come upon a whole organization that gets a failing grade in English and math. And I am not picking on it because it is an organization of bloggers. But if I didn’t already dislike blogs, this would do it.” Needless to say, since his retirement from The New York Times, Chass’ website effectively serves as a blog.

The underlying problems with these attitudes are not the disagreement — breadth of opinions is essential — but the incredible elitism espoused by print journalists, both current and former. Writers don’t need to like change, but they don’t have much a choice but to accept it. It’s like when your family moves during the middle of fifth grade. You may not want to leave your old room and that one girl that helps you with state capitals, but egging your new neighbors won’t help you identify Frankfurt, Kentucky.

If newspapers want to make money, they need to change their business model; but if they want to retain any relevance, they need to change mindsets.

Sean Kittridge ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in journalism.

An editing error in the original copy was corrected. “Begins” was written as “beings.” We regret the error.