Rupert Murdoch says Apple's iPad is a "potential saviour of newspapers". His wishful thinking doesn't stand close scrutiny.

On the plus side moving to the iPad will save publishers the cost of printing on mashed dead trees, wrapping and distributing.

Apple's 30% cut of revenue is the same as the mark-up made by newsagents and other physical outlets selling newspapers – so no savings there.

Editorial costs will remain the same. So the savings will be relatively small.

However you cut it, fewer readers will buy a digital newspaper than a printed newspaper.

You don't need special equipment to read a printed newspaper. Apple may have sold a million iPads, but that's not even 0.1% of the today's potential newspaper readership.

Even if this obstacle was overcome, fewer readers will pay for digital subscriptions than print subscriptions. The evidence to date suggests only 5% would pay, but even if this number was 25%, that's a huge drop in copy sales revenue.

Fewer readers means less adverting revenue.

And there will fewer readers per purchase. Printed newspapers are passed on. It will be harder to legally pass-on an iPad newspaper. This means even less advertising revenue.

True, iPad readers, who are identifiable are worth more to advertisers than unidentifiable print newspaper readers.

We'll put aside for now the idea that free online newspapers will get the lion's share of advertising.

The numbers don't stack up to support the idea that the iPad will save the newspaper industry.

Apple's iPad is the first of a wave of products which will rebuild the media landscape. They'll change media, but they are not the panacea Rupert Murdoch says they are.

America's exhibition industry declined 12.5% in 2009, according to Center for Exhibition Industry Research. It fell by 3% in 2008.

I can't find hard numbers, but anecdotally I've noticed New Zealand exhibitor numbers and visitor numbers are down at many of the trade and public shows.

It seems the expo business faces the same challenges as newspapers and magazines. Not only are marketing budgets are being squeezed, but increasingly the money is being spent online with Google Ads and social media growing rapidly.

The difference is Expo companies don't have the option of an iPad strategy or building an online paywall.

When I started as a journalist, newspapers and magazines were still put together using hot metal type. At times I catch a faint metallic smell reminding me of those days.

I also remember the clack of typewriters, telephones with bells, the newsroom clash of egos, the mumbling from the subs desk and the questions from the proof-readers. I've never been a smoker, but years spent working in newsrooms probably did as much damage to my lungs. And the pub lunches waiting for contacts to spill the beans and deliver an exclusive punished my liver.

Of course I miss the shabby glamour of the old days. Journalism was fun then. It can still be fun.

The one thing I feel newspapers really lost when moving to modern digital systems were the clipping and photo libraries, the librarians and the other custodians of knowledge who just knew how to find stuff fast. Google did for them.

Google does a great job, but I miss chatting with an intelligent human being then seeing a Manilla folder of clips and photos arrive on my desk an hour or so later.

A blog post, article, or whatever else you call your copy, is what a journalist calls a story. Here's how to write one.

You start a story by telling the reader what it is about. You do this briefly in the headline. Then again in the introduction or intro, which is really a stop press paragraph.

Ask yourself:

• what is this story about,
• what information am I trying to get across and
• what points must I make to do this?

Sum up the story in your mind in one simple sentence. This is your intro.

Its purpose is to tell the reader what the article is about and draw the reader in. As a rule, readers prefer brief intros.

Write so a reader who only samples your intro still has a basic grasp of your story.

Newspapers teach journalists — on both tabloid and quality papers —  to start with a single sentence of between 15 and 21 words. This is what you should strive for, although at times you'll need to use more words.

As an aside, proper nouns made up of multiple words only count as a single word when you're calculating the ideal intro length.

Your first paragraph can be one sentence or three but keep it short and crisp.

Next comes the how — how did it happen or, more usually in your case, what happens next?

This is background information or explanation.

After the explanation comes amplification. You amplify the point or points following on from the intro.

Make these points one by one and in descending order of importance.

Last, after making all the main points, tie up any loose ends — ie., add any extra or background information deemed necessary but of lesser importance.

It comes as no surprise to read Crikey's half of Australian news is spin. After reading Nick Davies' Flat Earth News and spending the last 30 years of my life as a journalist, I'd expect a higher percentage.

Newspapers no longer invest in journalists and news gathering. It's that simple.

I've heard publishing executives explain 'content' – they rarely think about news – can be picked up for free. And some think money spent on reporter's salaries is going down the drain.

One problem with publishers allowing industry relatively cheap access to the pages of once-proud papers is it cheapens the value of advertising. If a $5,000 investment in PR can get editorial on the front page, that lowers the value of newspaper advertising.

When newspapers first went online in the 1990s they tried to get readers to pay for content. Almost all the early attempts were dismal failures, with only specialist titles managing to extract a fee from readers.

In 2009 the industry revisited the idea, with Rupert Murdoch leading the way. He said News Corporation would introduce charges at all its online properties. To date this hasn’t happened. Other publishers said they’d follow – but most are, wisely, letting Murdoch walk first through the minefield.

The Pew Research Centre’s recent survey of US consumer attitudes underlines the risks of charging for online news. Its State of the News Media 2010 report found:

• About 71% of internet users, or 53% of all American adults, get news online
• Only 35% have a favourite site.
• Only 7% of all people who get news online having a favourite online news source they say they would pay for

Have you read a newspaper, magazine or online story which at some point includes a boast along the lines of "as predicted by this publication"?

Are you impressed by this kind of message? I'm not.

It's what I call self-congratulatory journalism and it's the media version of self-abuse.

If you call yourself a journalist, stop the practice now.

Nobody cares how clever you are. Nobody turned to the story for information about your brilliance.

Readers want facts. OK, let's get real and admit what all the research shows — they also want entertainment. "We predicted this would happen" maybe correct, but it's irrelevant and it certainly isn't entertaining.

The "we told you so" school of journalism is more likely to put people off.

If you want to preen. Go and do it somewhere else. Start a blog.

——

On a personal note: I may have done this in the past.

It is no longer brave, rash or insightful to suggest printed newspapers will play less of a role in the future. But it counts for something when the scion the world's largest newspaper company says so.

James Murdoch talks about being in "the business of ideas" and says journalism plays a role (phew!) but it won't be on the scale of News Corp's broadcasting and entertainment operations.

James Murdoch sees smaller role for newspapers.