What Will We Do Without Newspapers?

[Guest]

Has anyone noticed how many daily newspapers have gone out of business? Here's a short list of cities where newspapers have ceased publication, just within the last two years. I've only listed major cities. The number of smaller community newspapers that have gone belly-up is significantly longer.

Seattle...Denver...Detroit...San Francisco...Cinncinnati...Oakland...New York...Aspen...Omaha...Minneapolis...Kansas City...Baltimore...Las Vegas...Tucson

Other big city newspapers are on the ropes. All of the newspapers owned by The Tribune Company are in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Those include the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun, Hartford Courant, Miami Sun-Sentinel, and the Orlando Sentinel. The reporting staffs at the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Boston Globe and New Yrok Times have been substantially reduced in recent months. In addition, most of those remaining have been required to take substantial pay cuts. The situation is calling into question whether we can rely on the printed news anymore. The Boston Globe was threatened with shutdown unless the employes took a big pay cut. Many financial analysts question whether even the New York Times can survive much longer.

Basically, virtually every printed newspaper in the country has either stopped publishing or is in intensive care. (Except The Villages Daily Sun, but we all know the quality of news reporting there.)

News gathering is not to be confused with opinion writing or bloviating. Opinions can be stimulating and, for the audiences at Fox News and MSNBC, cathartic, depending on their political views. We can spend hours surfing the posts of bloggers we like or despise. But nothing except a well-edited newspaper has demonstrated an ability to report and investigate news that is important to our daily lives.

It's reached the point that most of what we read these days is opinion, most often slanted in the direction chosen by the author. Opinions, however insightful or provocative and whether expressed online or in print or in prime time, are cheap to produce--often even free. Reporting and investigating the news is expensive. It's being done less and less.

Whether we've noticed or not, we're soon reaching a point in the history of the distribution of information and knowledge that is every bit as important as the invention of printing by Gutenberg.

How will you feel about finding a thorough and balanced gathering and analysis of the news, both domestic and international? Do you know where you'd look? Maybe we should begin looking, because it probably won't be long before our hour with a cup of coffee and the paper are long gone.

[Guest]

I have absolutely no sympathy for the demise of the afore mentioned newspapers. Every one that was mentioned had an agenda and news reporting took a backseat to that agenda. Quality journalism seems to be a lost art.
Our Village ("happy") newspaper will survive just fine because its a source of information to organize our daily lives here in TV. Yes,I call it our "happy" newspaper, for I feel it hides what would be known as bad PR for TV. So be it, it works for me and goes well with my coffee.
Handie

[Guest]

The Internet is where most go for news I would think. I know I dont buy the paper. I look at the one at work just for advertisements. Heck I dont watch much of the local news. It is just about the same everday. Channel 9 especially. You can cover a story and be good at it, and make everyone informed, but dont make it a life story on one person or event. cover all the good things going on also.
But for the Papers. cant see buying it when I can get all the info on the web
everyday and up todate as they day goes on. That would be my input. But I do agree with Handie, I remember when you could pick up the paper and have alot of good info to read.

Money out

[Guest]

I agree with Handie. Most all of those papers are not reporting the news. I live in the DC area and we have two papers. The Post and The Times. The Post reports its own slanted opinion and the Times reports news. The Post is losing readers and ad money, The Times is growing and making money. If those papers on your list would start doing the job they were supposed to do they might survive. If they continue to report a biased opinion they will die. And they should. I have talked to at least 20 people who canceled the Post because all the reporting was so left leaning that they could not believe the information that was reported.

[Guest]

There are a few folks who constantly criticize the Daily Sun for its content. Agree with Handie that it does not print negative stories about TV, but that's just good business. I've noticed in the last couple years, there have been a goodly number of stories about crime, especially about robberies/burglaries. Possibly the paper is getting more daring, but I expect that this was a business decision to give us readers more of what we needed, wanted, and clamored to get. But I doubt if we're going to see any three part expose's of the Morse family or editorials criticizing Crossman. The developer owns the newspaper (in fact, if not directly) and it is used as a marketing and service tool for TV. And if one wants to find negative newspaper stories about TV or Morse, read the Leesburg, Ocala, Sumter Co, or Orlando papers and you'll find them.

Some people complain about the conservative slant of the paper. Oh yeah, it is conservative. Even I find some of the columnists a bit hard to swallow at times. But nobody gives me the paper and forces me to read it. I had to subscribe and pay for it. And when I pick up my mail, I see for sale on Villages property the USA Today and The Orlando Sentinel, two quite liberal papers. And if you choose, you can get the Slantenal thrown on your driveway every morning --- mine comes a little after the Sun, about 4:30 AM. And of course, you can get all the other local papers at Circle K and a lot of other places.

As to content, I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been favorably impressed with the paper's national and international coverage since they've expanded Section A. It's got most if not all the stories that are carried in the Sentinel or St. Pete's Times.

As to why so many papers are closing, there are multiple reasons. I do agree that many have lost readership due to their editorial policy and what many perceive as slanted news. But most of those readers would have gone elsewhere, e.g. Washington Post and Times. However, overall newspaper readership has dropped precipitously. Possibly some of that can be explained by the Net, but I don't buy that. I think more its just that newspaper readers are dying. We're really the last generation that grew up reading the paper with breakfast, as we're the last who came home and watched Walter and Chet & Dave on the networks. Too many of our younger fellow citizens get their news from Colbert and Stewart and the Letterman/Leno monologues. These people don't read newspapers on the Web. If anything, the more intelligent ones might read the Onion or Uncle Dave.

(Kind of an aside -- don't know where the list of newspapers that have ceased publication came from or how accurate it is for other cities, but the Kansas City Star is very much alive. Well at least they are still printing their liberal slant and delivering daily.)

If this sounds a bit pessimistic, well, yeah, I guess it is. I wish I were wrong.



`

[Guest]

detroit still has the "detroit news, and the "detroit free press.

[Guest]

The large daily newspapers made a serious financial error by not charging for internet access, not saying I like that but I am afraid that is their only salvation financially. Why pay for it when you can get it online for nothing !!

I still get my NY Times and leaf through each and every page. There is something relaxing, despite the content of the news, about leafing through the paper and seeing items that you would miss online because they would require you to be looking for them. I cannot see anything every replacing that !

My personal sources of news go from the Times, who I surely dont agree with much of the time, to the Sun but I do not rely on it for any national or international news, and then the net. Over the years as stories broke I have quite a list of "favorites" as I like to go to local papers to get more detailed and "intimate" coverage of the story. I do balance it a bit by simpling googling big stories and getting as much as I can, even if from some fringe web site.

It is also a good source of news to keep an eye on the new releases of non fiction books. If the story was big, someone will write on it, and I find that to be an exceptional source of detail that never makes it to the MSM in anyway !

I also think that, like the auto manufacturers, many of these large papers are "married" to unions and any adjustments are just not easy !

[Guest]

I expect the editorials to be slanted to the left. As Obama said at the correspondent's dinner, " You all voted for me." What I don't appreciate is that even on the sports pages, entertainment pages etc. the writers have to get in their liberal slant. Kevin McDonough, in the Daily Sun, is always making digs at republicans. They lose all credibility.

[Guest]

Electronic media is the future. Most of the papers going under are left slanted no doubt. Same with the network news. MSNBC is down 50% I believe and CNN is droping as well. I don't think the others are in much better shape. Yet FOX seems to be flurishing. What does they tell you? Iteresting that conservative talk radio seems to be growing by the day, yet there doesn't seem to be much of a market for liberal talk radio.

[Guest]

Seth Godin asks the question, "When newspapers are gone, what will you miss?"

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/01/when-newspapers.html

From the article:
"I worry about the quality of a democracy when the the state government or the local government can do what it wants without intelligent coverage. I worry about the abuse of power when the only thing a corrupt official needs to worry about is the TV news."

[Guest]

As evidenced in many different forums and outlets, it seems that right leaning folks tend to me more vocal and want to discuss their views vs. moderates and left leaning people. Hence the current popularity of certain outlets and formats. There isn't as much to discuss and debate when one is satisfied or optimistic about the current situation.

[Guest]

As evidenced in many different forums and outlets, it seems that right leaning folks tend to me more vocal and want to discuss their views vs. moderates and left leaning people. Hence the current popularity of certain outlets and formats. There isn't as much to discuss and debate when one is satisfied or optimistic about the current situation.



WOW...in regard to your comment....you must have missed all the press from 2004 to 2008 :)

Actually,there is not one philosophy around that will not take what they can get as far as publicity.

I think papers have slants, but you can find so much information on any issue these days FROM BOTH SIDES.....if you think that right leaning folks are the only ones who want to discuss, first visit the MOVEON site and review all their paid ads for tv, and then just continue around to many many many left wing sites who have only one purpose in life.....dish the right !

Both sides do it......and why you feel only one side does is a mystery to me !

[Guest]

I should have added that this scenario is subject to reversal depending on the adminstration in office at any given time.

[Guest]

Seth Godin asks the question, "When newspapers are gone, what will you miss?"

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/01/when-newspapers.html

From the article:
"I worry about the quality of a democracy when the the state government or the local government can do what it wants without intelligent coverage. I worry about the abuse of power when the only thing a corrupt official needs to worry about is the TV news."

The newspapers mentioned were antithetical to "intelligent coverage." Their loss may actually increase the quality of news coverage.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

worldwide. For at least the last 20 years it has been no secret that readership was in decline. Prior to the electronic deluge of recent years there was just no interest on the part of the next and following generations to have a newspaper. I remember every time we visited the kids or grandkids I had to get up early to go get two things they usually did not have...the newspaper and coffee!!!
The marketing planners for newspapers have been well aware of the coming demise of their industry due to the electronic and especially digital impact.
As a result one should note that many of the much larger family owned and operated papers were sold off. While they all did upgrade the processing capability of what was reporting, their biggest challenge was to avoid being the purveyor of yesterdays news.
The wanted shorter set up times for getting to press and faster processing time once gone to press...the objective? Hold the presses as long as possible to get the last ball scores in and on the driveway by 6:30 AM!!!

For the owners of the newspapers current events and closures have been know to become reality for years. For Congress and Senate in the current bail out, entitlement, give away era to signal rescuing the newspapers is the equivilent to buying more comfortable deck chairs for the Titantic to make the trip to the bottom less painful.

What we could never accomplish was to get the newspapers to commit funds to become participants in what ever it is or was going to be that could replace them. Taking the money and running as usual was more to their liking VS the future survival of an industry.

Time and progress marches on no different than buggy whips and all the other aging, do nothing dormant technologies since.

Local papers local news (such as it is) can survive for a time. National news...forget it. I don't care whose paper it is anywhere in the world...by the time it gets to prints it is old news already.

BTK

[Guest]

I should have added that this scenario is subject to reversal depending on the adminstration in office at any given time.

Seriously, Your original post, answered quite well by Bucco was a vision of the media that was IMHO, Way out there. After posting your response to Bucco, "Way out there" was a gross understatement.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

The large daily newspapers made a serious financial error by not charging for internet access, not saying I like that but I am afraid that is their only salvation financially. Why pay for it when you can get it online for nothing !!

Simple answer to this one: Some papers did try to charge for access early on. But users soon realized that the National news was just that, National. They could get that anywhere. And most (not all of course) local news is just fluff to fill the pages. Some sites still have a premium section for fee but I can't imagine that they make much cash on this.

What will be missed if too many go under is the quality investigative reporting that goes on to keep local governments etc. in check.

If case you haven't seen this site: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/flash/

It is a good starting point for the front page of almost every paper in the USA. From there you can go to their web site (if any) for more in depth coverage.

[Guest]

At one time the only news came from town criers, and as much of the population was illiterate, that's all that worked. Town criers were opinionated, and their success depended on the generoosity of their audience and the leniency of the state.

Eventually, enough of the population could read and write, and newspapers flourished. Many cities had several newspapers, as it was the only medium for mass information transfer, town criers having "died off." Again, opinions governed the news presented by commercial newspapers as each newspaper sought audiences for their messages and sponsoring advertisements.

Then radio came along, and it's entertainment value soon became supplemented with its news delivery capacity. As commercial as newspapers, radio stations and networks had the same audience capture problems, and used structured bias to garner market segments.

Lo and behold, television joined the fray. TV evolved through cable and personal satellite receivers to provide near-time reporting of news, but proved to be just as biased in order to be commercially successful.

The bottom line is, where newspapers had flourished as being alone in the public information business, competition from other media sliced into the newspaper's monopoly, and newspapers - as any business with a shrinking customer base - started to cease operations due to that natural business phenomenon, competition.

Now the Internet appeareth. A new competitor for the public information delivery business. It delivers information faster than newspapers and from multiple sources. It too has bias in its sources. It costs less than newspapers, too.

Sometime in the future, the Internet will find itself facing a new competitor for access to human curiosity market. Innovation creates change.

So, just like companies making buggywhips, stagecoaches and dial-type telephones, the newspaper companies find themselves having to adapt to a technologically changing and ever-demanding customer base - or cease to exist. Their evolution, in the face of an ever-shrinking market, is inevitable.

[Guest]

Simple answer to this one: Some papers did try to charge for access early on. But users soon realized that the National news was just that, National. They could get that anywhere. And most (not all of course) local news is just fluff to fill the pages. Some sites still have a premium section for fee but I can't imagine that they make much cash on this.

What will be missed if too many go under is the quality investigative reporting that goes on to keep local governments etc. in check.

If case you haven't seen this site: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/flash/

It is a good starting point for the front page of almost every paper in the USA. From there you can go to their web site (if any) for more in depth coverage.


Russ...your point on investigative reporting is EXCELLENT ! I have nothing to add to what you said, except to say how great a point that was.

[Guest]

We get the St. Louis Post Dispatch and I really worry about the bird cages in St. Louis if this paper goes out of business.:icon_wink:
Irish

[Guest]

We get the St. Louis Post Dispatch and I really worry about the bird cages in St. Louis if this paper goes out of business.:icon_wink:
Irish

Good point.

I was just wondering what I'm going to lay under my fish when I clean them.

[Guest]

Think of all those poor puppies looking for "housebreaking" material....

[Guest]

First, I agree that the daily newspaper is clearly going away except for the locally focused papers that provide value to their readers (TVDS for example) Local papers are able to focus their staff on things that are of interest to the local community, while getting their national and international news from Associated Press and other news organizations that sell copy.

The major newspapers such as the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times and Chicago Tribune have long believed that if a story was not reported by one of their reporters it had not occurred. They also have made their primary coverage the national and international news, not the news that interests the average reader in their cities. In other words, they provided little that was perceived as value to their readers. The single major exception was the Wall Street Journal. In the last three years here is how circulation has fared at these five papers: Numbers is ‘000’s.

The WSJ - 2006 Circ 2,058 - 2009 Circ. 2,082 Change - +1%
The Wash Post – 2006 Circ 961 – 2009 Circ 665 Change – (31%)
NY Times – 2006 Circ 1.684 – 2009 Circ 1,039 Change – (38%)
LA Times – 2006 Circ 1,231 – 2009 Circ 723 Change – (41%)
Chicago Trib – 2006 Circ 957 – 2009 Circ 501 – Change - (48%)

These papers were not selected because of their loss in circulation, but rather since they were perceived as important papers with their 2006 volume reflecting that. The two biggest losers among large circulation dailies were The Detroit Free Press (57%) and The Philadelphia Inquirer (59%)

Big national dailies losses in circulation have been compounded by loss of advertising revenue. As circulation declines, so does the amount an advertiser is willing to pay. Classified ads, one of the most reliable revenue streams has dried up as Craig’s List, an on-line version replaces it. Craig’s List is now in Ocala and Orlando. It will not be long until it comes to The Villages.

If major papers are to survive they must do three things:

1. Cut the national and international reporting staff. There are now well over sixty print reporters in the White House Press Corps alone. A multitude of reporters adds little to the story value. Use another source. Close your London and Paris office’. Contract with papers there to provide your information.
2. Focus on your local circulation area. If you are the NY Times, you can focus on NYC and Albany and have more investigative reporting to do than can be done by organizations many times your size. The opportunities in Chicago and Illinois boggle the mind.
3. Develop a salable product of the net. I have been a reader of the WSJ for years. Today I still get it, although it is no longer delivered in paper form. The Daily Brief shows up on my computer every morning and the full journal shows up on my Kindle at the same time. I have to pay for both and do so willingly. The WSJ has taken the time and effort required to make a good, salable digital paper. The NY Times has put forth an effort and is easily the second best Kindle paper. The rest are doing simple ‘cut and paste’, giving no thought to the potential value of the digital customer.

[Guest]

but they will not survive. As was discussed earlier they are on the path of technological obsolescence. Cutting expenses won't allow them to survive.
They have been on this slope for the at least last 25 years. Their current demise has nothing to do with the current economic climate. Their destiny was cast long , long before.
Read some of the prior posts that point out the succession of communications from the town crier to today...move over buggy whips here comes the printed newspapers!!!!

BTK

[Guest]

3. Develop a salable product of the net. I have been a reader of the WSJ for years. Today I still get it, although it is no longer delivered in paper form. The Daily Brief shows up on my computer every morning and the full journal shows up on my Kindle at the same time. I have to pay for both and do so willingly. The WSJ has taken the time and effort required to make a good, salable digital paper. The NY Times has put forth an effort and is easily the second best Kindle paper. The rest are doing simple ‘cut and paste’, giving no thought to the potential value of the digital customer.

I agree that WSJ has and can continue to derive profit this way BUT their product is very different than the NY Times or other large city papers. WSJ almost stands alone in their content and loyal readers will pay for it.